16 ms·

It’s not just California, but California may be one of the more egregious state neglecters. The push at the state level for policies that focus on equality of

by csa 2y ago

It’s not just California, but California may be one of the more egregious state neglecters. The push at the state level for policies that focus on equality of outcomes over equality of opportunities will not end well for the gifted and talented communities. Whenever I hear these people talk about their policies, I can’t help but recall Harrison Bergeron. Focusing on equality of outcomes in a society that structurally does not afford equality of opportunities is a fool’s game that ends with Bergeron-esque levels of absurdity. Imho, the only viable/main solution is to acknowledge that we all aren’t equal, we don’t all have access to the same opportunities, but as a country we can implement policies that lessen the imbalance. Head Start is a good example. Well-run gifted and talented programs in schools are also good examples. Killing truly progressive programs for the purpose of virtue signaling is a loss for society.

philipov 2y ago
While I may have sympathy for your more substantive points, anytime I hear someone mention virtue signalling, it makes it sound like they're virtue signalling. Better to just not bring up that dog whistle.
- exe34 2y ago
  it's a perfectly good phrase to describe what it says. if that bothers you, maybe you need to ask yourself why.
  - lern_too_spel 2y ago
    In my experience, people who use the term "virtue signalling" don't understand the problems that the supposed virtue signalers are trying to solve and simply use the term as a cheap dismissal of their policies. If the policies are bad, explain why they're bad. Don't just say that people putting the 10 Commandments in schools are virtue signalling.
    - exe34 2y ago
      Or indeed, it's possible that neither you nor the virtue signallers understand why they're doing it.
      - aspenmayer 2y ago
        Regardless of whether or not either interlocutor understands the term, using the term virtue signaling itself is self-defeating for both parties for different reasons. For the one hearing it, it’s a red herring, and for the one saying it, it’s a dog whistle. For the third party person reading the interaction without or with lesser context, it’s a thought-terminating cliche.
        exe34 2y ago
        > For the third party person reading the interaction without or with lesser context, it’s a thought-terminating cliche. if one's thought is so easily terminated, maybe there wasn't as much thought as one might think to begin with.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        aspenmayer 2y ago
        If good faith weren't a prerequisite for reasoned debate, perhaps.
        exe34 2y ago
        remember, we're talking about somebody getting triggered by the words "virtue-signalling", so I think good faith left the conversation a few stops back.
        aspenmayer 2y ago
        This is part of why it’s a bad term - its meaning is almost impossible to understand even in context because it means different things to different people and people read a lot into it. It’s kind of overloaded and seems like flamebait to me, I guess. Some interesting bits here as well (italics added for emphasis): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling > However, some argue that these expressions of outrage or moral alignment may reflect genuine concern, and that accusing others of virtue signalling can itself be a form of signalling. This has led to the coining of a related concept, vice signalling, which refers to the public promotion of negative or controversial views to appear tough, pragmatic, or rebellious, often for political or social capital. I would add on and argue that using the term virtue signaling is itself an example of virtue signaling.
  - standardUser 2y ago
    > if that bothers you, maybe you need to ask yourself why. That's even vaguer and less compelling rhetoric than "virtue signaling".
- hombre_fatal 2y ago
  I have to agree. It's distracting because it's a low signal quip that asserts that your opponents have no substance behind their views beyond looking good. Just make your argument. Even if this were the rare valid application of it, it's so overused as a low effort attack that the comment is no better off for using it. Finally, we have to contend with the fact that people earnestly believe in the things they say and do. If it were just for optics and they didn't actually hold their positions, these issues would be far easier to deal with.
  - Jensson 2y ago
    > If it were just for optics and they didn't actually hold their positions, these issues would be far easier to deal with. No, then it would have been easier. Virtue signaling is so hard to deal with since people don't want to lose their virtue, they have to stay the course and continue to upheld that what they did was virtuous or they lose all their hard work. A good sign is if you call your opponents names rather than try to win them over, then you are just virtue signaling instead of trying to fix anything, insults doesn't improve anything except act as signaling. This is how most politicians acts, it tend to make you very popular and make your tribe view you as very virtuous, virtue signaling works.
  - cloverich 2y ago
    > It's distracting because it's a low signal quip that asserts that your opponents have no substance behind their views beyond looking good. Just make your argument. That is the argument. > Finally, we have to contend with the fact that people earnestly believe in the things they say and do. If it were just for optics and they didn't actually hold their positions, these issues would be far easier to deal with. The point of the argument isn't that people don't genuinely believe these issues. Its that they participate in these views in earnest because of social conformity as opposed to a genuine understanding of, and commonly without any intention of helping resolve them. The symptom then is blindly electing leaders with no real plan (or worse) and the result is predictably poor outcomes. Its used as a battering ram in discussions; I thought it was a dog whistle too before moving out to the West coast by my god it really is everywhere here, and it really does stifle discussion. Its a real issue.
phil21 2y ago
> Killing truly progressive programs for the purpose of virtue signaling is a loss for society It's not just a loss for society. It's society-killing. Taking resources away from those who move society forward and spending them on those who are unlikely to "pay it back" is a way your culture dies. Conquerers in the past used this strategy to win massive empires for themselves. It's a ridiculous self-own. This is perhaps the sole political topic I will die on a hill for.
- cogman10 2y ago
  > Taking resources away from those who move society forward and spending them on those who are unlikely to "pay it back" is a way your culture dies. What does this even mean? To me, the measure of a healthy society is how that society treats those that are "unlikely to pay it back". The most unhealthy societies treat unwanted humans as disposable refuse. For example, I don't think we'd call the culture/society of the 1900s US particularly healthy. Yet that was probably the peak of the US keeping resources in the hands of "those who move society forward" the robber barons and monopolists. We didn't think anything of working to death unwanted 5 year olds that were unlikely to make a positive impact on society. As for "dying culture" that to me is a very different thing from society. Societies can have multiple cultures present and healthy societies tolerate multiple cultures. > Conquerers in the past used this strategy to win massive empires for themselves. Which conquerers? I can think of no historical example where a conquerer somehow convinced a target to take care of their needy so they could conquer. > This is perhaps the sole political topic I will die on a hill for. I'm really interested in the foundation of these beliefs. What are the specific historical examples you are thinking of when you make these statements? Or is it mostly current events that you consider?
  - gowld 2y ago
    You can't imagine interpreting the parent comment for its clear face value -- that supporting outlier high achievers helps everyone in society? The inventor of a vaccine or a microchip or a sculpture doesn't hoard the invention for themself. Meanwhile, societies like USSR and Communist China, that persecuted their geniuses, collapsed their previously great societies.
Simon_ORourke 2y ago
> the gifted and talented communities. As in gifted and talented individuals who form a community, or all these folks from this ethnic background you think are talented? Because if it's the former then I'm surprised they've got a community going, and if it's the latter you would be better served getting the calipers out and go measure some skulls instead to promote that nonsense.
- ctoth 2y ago
  > As in gifted and talented individuals who form a community, or all these folks from this ethnic background you think are talented? Because if it's the former then I'm surprised they've got a community going "A recent analysis in Nature caused a stir by pointing out that the vast majority of Nobel Prize winners belong to the same academic family. Of 736 researchers who have won the Big Recognition, 702 group together into one huge connected academic lineage (with lineage broadly defined as when one scientist “mentors” another, usually in the form of being their PhD advisor)." > getting the calipers out and go measure some skulls Please, just stop. [0]: Yes, scientific progress depends on like a thousand people https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/yes-scientific-progress-depends-on https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/yes-scientific-pro... [1]: How to win a Nobel prize https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586-024-02897-2/index.html#section-J5DGxuc7ca https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586-024-02897-2/index.ht...
  - stonesthrowaway 2y ago
    > [0]: Yes, scientific progress depends on like a thousand people https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/yes-scientific-pro https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/yes-scientific-pro... I agree with your overall message but it's those thousand people and the hundreds of thousands ( maybe millions ) of people who make the scientific progress possible. It takes a community and an infrastructure to turn a scientific discovery into scientific progress. Like it took thousands or millions of people to take the discoveries of von Neumann, Church, Turing, etc into something worthwhile.
- wyldberry 2y ago
  Gifted and talented communities are all the persons who meet a criteria to join said community. In children this is often scoring beyond grade-level in tests.
soco 2y ago
If it was that simple I'm sure we would have seen it already. I imagine any gifted program, and you can imagine it in any way you like, will inevitably promote a majority from a certain group, thus by definition will be a target for every discrimination complaint - because basically it will be supporting and pumping more money to an already privileged group. So somebody has to decide: either targeted to constant fussing and worse, or no program at all and wait for the somewhat fewer gifted from the group with possibilities to still bubble up. Of course this can change every few years, and given a ideal situation when you had addressed the challenges of poverty, you can draft now a challenge-free gifted program. Note: From the start we assume that the gifted deserve more from public school, thus we call them "neglected" when they seem to be simply treated the same.
- Jensson 2y ago
  > Note: From the start we assume that the gifted deserve more from public school, thus we call them "neglected" when they seem to be simply treated the same. Do you think challenged kids deserve more from public school than anyone else? The point is that different kids has different needs, the general classroom is designed for the average student and doesn't fit those who are very different regardless in what way they are different.
  - anon84873628 2y ago
    >Do you think challenged kids deserve more from public school than anyone else? Well, let's say we can only spend the money on one group or the other. One could argue that the disadvantaged kids should be prioritized because they need more help, and are less likely to succeed without it. Whereas gifted kids might be bored in school and do worse than if they had dedicated programs, but they still have the chance to find enrichment outside of school or catch up later in life. Of course, whether those statements are true would need to be an area of research. How would you calculate the overall ROI for society between the two options? Is it more import to "lift up the bottom" or "accelerate the top"? And of course ideally we would do both. I'm just saying it's not surprising that most (liberal / social democrat type) people will default to supporting the "more needy" first.
BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
What we oughta do is make a system where state education funding is equally distributed (per student capita) to all the schools in a state. Local funding by property taxes, while not most of the funding for schools, also needs to go. We also oughta try and tackle the administrative bloat on a federal level to get more of that money going to things that directly help students. I agree equality of outcome is a hopeless endeavor when schools are so dramatically unequal in the states, but I also think we could address that inequality of opportunity with better funding policy.
- onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
  Why? It costs a lot more to build a new school or maintain an existing one in The Bay than in Fresno. It also costs more for teachers since the cost of living is so much higher.
  - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
    Yeah that’s fair, you might need to make the formula more complicated. The goal though would be to alter what we have now, which is extreme differences in quality between schools in rich areas and schools in poor ones, to a model where everyone can access a similarly decent quality of public schooling. Maybe the formula would need to look something like (the money required to maintain the school building) + (a wage thats similar to the wages for other teachers in the state, with cost of living factored in) * (the best teacher to student ratio achievable across the state) * (student count at the school)
    - gowld 2y ago
      You might be surprised to learn that this is how education funding already works. Government isn't completely idiotic. What you are ignoring is that educational spending imbalance comes from private voluntary educational spending (enrichment programs, camps, PTA), not public mandatory spending.
- toast0 2y ago
  In California, there are only a handful of "Basic Aid" school districts where property tax funds exceed the minimum "revenue limit" per pupil that state government will provide funding to reach otherwise. That does include several of the school districts in the SF Bay Area, but the vast majority of the state is already under a state funding formula based on attendance and additions for certain types of needs. Other states have different situations. Washington state is largely funded locally, with unfunded mandates set by the state; and many of the districts have issues with unbalanced budgets in recent years.
iwontberude 2y ago
Functionally talented and gifted students autodidact to their interests which is a much better outcome than institutionalized bullshit schooling. I deeply disagree with your assessment that institutional learning is some universal booster for smart people and shows your own personal bias. So in balance of your position: I think it grinds down a students willpower and spirit to be placed on a pedestal to be given more resources than other kids. I’m willing to meet in the middle and say either system is equally depressive of students for learning in a way that leads to benefits for society.
- roguecoder 2y ago
  Learning from teachers is a skill that can be learned, and taught. Being unable to learn from others or collaborate with others will vastly limit what gifted children can accomplish in life. Not teaching those skills as skills sets gifted children up for failure in college and the workplace. There's also other skills that are very often difficult for "gifted" kids to learn: rejection sensitivity disorder, for example, is often comorbid. Somatic exercises, learning to pay attention to our bodies and not just our intellect. Note taking. Slicing problems into small pieces it is okay to fail. All of these are things conventional education assumes kids will pick up on their own. We have actual studies on the results of unschooling gifted kids, and the outcomes are not good. It is much better if they can be coached on skills they don't have, even when those are skills other people acquire passively without having to be taught. It doesn't necessarily take "more" resources to educate gifted children: it takes differentiated resources. "Your brain works differently, so this classroom works better for you" is just as true for learning disabilities as it is for "gifted" students.
  - iwontberude 2y ago
    I’m not advocating for isolation, rather I’m talking about anarchy. Being able to self select who you learn from and not being in a graded and tracked institutional setting. It’s soulless and contrived.
couchdb_ouchdb 2y ago
We just ejected from Seattle Public Schools for this reason. My daughter, as a gifted student, was basically ignored by her teachers for the last 3 years because she was smart, and therefore they didn't have to worry about her. But, by ignoring her, she atrophied. Her standardized testing scores dropped every year. She no longer cared about learning. It truly is a regression to the mean.
- frmersdog 2y ago
  In what way are you certain that she's gifted?
  - threatofrain 2y ago
    IMO any student that is 1-2 years ahead can be considered gifted for the purposes of parents who are thinking about how to optimize public or private education for their kids. Based on how a lot of education systems work in the US (recognizing only discrete progress in a student), if your child is 1-2 years ahead then that's worth recognizing and start nurturing. That's about when public schools also recognize the giftedness of a student. You don't need brilliant children to achieve this kind of advantage, just a careful eye and consistent nurturing.
    - gowld 2y ago
      The OP strongly tries to claim (before contradicting herself in the concluding pargraph) that gifted is a major psychological difference, not merely being smart and a fast learner.
      - DiggyJohnson 2y ago
        Can you quote where you are seeing that I didn't get that reading at all from GP.
  - couchdb_ouchdb 2y ago
    In Seattle, there's actually a test you can take to get you into the "HCC" program which is the gifted program in Seattle Public Schools. Seattle, however, has been trying (successfully) for years to dismantle it. So even if you pass the test, there's not very many places that you can go to get these services.
jltsiren 2y ago
I don't have much experience with how education works in California, or in the US in general. But there is one universal issue with special programs for gifted kids: parents. It's hard to distinguish gifted kids from average kids with ambitious parents. If you let ambitious parents push their kids to programs they are not qualified for, they can easily ruin the programs for the actual gifted kids. Gifted programs work best when people don't consider them prestigious or think that they will improve the life outcomes for the participants. When they are more about individual interests than status and objective gains.
- scarmig 2y ago
  Naming the programs gifted and creating a gifted identity is the core issue. Instead, call it something like asynchronous development, and place kids in classes appropriate to their pace of development. I'm hopeful that AI can offer highly individualized education to each kid, and get around this issue entirely.
  - Jensson 2y ago
    > Instead, call it something like asynchronous development "Differently abled" works just fine both ways, that there is stigma attached to the title helps since it means parents wont push for it for no reason.
  - xeromal 2y ago
    The problem with changing the terminology is that people/kids are clever enough to turn it to a diss regardless. It's only a matter of time. Anyways, I don't see the big deal. I was too dumb to make it into gifted classes in school but it's not like that stopped me from going to college. I just went to a lesser college. Still make good money
- Spoom 2y ago
  In Ontario, access to these programs was gated by an IQ test given to all students based on the outcome of a standardized test (this was ~30 years ago, no idea what they do today). I'm not saying it was perfectly objective or equitable but it was a start at trying to make it objective. Are programs not doing something similar in California or elsewhere in the US?
hintymad 2y ago
> Killing truly progressive programs for the purpose of virtue signaling is a loss for society I wonder if the progressives ever wondered why so many Chinese students or Indian students could excel in the STEM programs of those top universities? Like we grew up with our parents making less than $500 a month in the early 2000s if we were lucky. Heck, a family from countryside or a small town probably made $200 a month or less. Like we studied English with a couple of cassettes and our English was so broken that we couldn't even clear custom when entering the US. Like our schools lost power every few days, and our teachers printed our exams and handouts using a manual mimeograph machine. Like I didn't even know touch typing before I got into college. Like I thought only experts could use a personal computer and typing "DIR" under DOS was so fascinating. Yeah, we were that poor. Yet, our teachers did one thing right: they did their job. They pushed us. They did't give up on us. They tried every way to make sure their explanation is clear, intuitive, and inspiring. They designed amazing problem sets to make sure we truly understand the fundamentals of math, physics, and chemistry. They didn't shy away from telling us that we didn't do a good job. They forced us to write essays every day, to solve problems every day, and in general to learn deeply every day. I still remembered the sly smile when my chemistry teacher made sure we could solve the ICO-style multi-step synthesis in organic chemistry. So, yeah, many of us wouldn't be where we are today if our teachers hadn't pushed hard on us. Equity my ass.
- laidoffamazon 2y ago
  It’s really strange that you have such emotional reactions to the concept of equity while my Indian middle class IIT educated dad who experienced Indian institutional failure in the 70s and 80s never really cared about if me or my sibling were in the G&T program. What separates you from the people that didn’t make it out?
  - hintymad 2y ago
    I don't care about G&T program per se, either. Nor did my country have it when I grew up. I do care about education. I guess my fundamental assumption is that when everyone maximizes their full potential, the outcome will naturally be different. So, pushing students to realize their potential will be against equity, but will be the best way to minimize the equity gap. Now the nuances for us in the US specifically: the US system is really good for the most and the least talented. The most talented get access to all kinds of free yet prestigious programs and camps, excellent books in local libraries, and professors in colleges. The least talented are carefully looked after, and they don't necessarily have much pressure to get into a college, and rightly so. It is, unfortunately, the vast middle who get hurt because they squander their time in school. They think they have learned, but they barely scratch the surface. NYT used to report that a straight-A student dreamed to become a scientist, yet couldn't even pass placement test of her college. Malcom mentioned in his book David and Goliath that a straight-A student failed her organic chemistry class in Brown University. Similarly in my personal experience, if it weren't for my teacher, I wouldn't know how deep I could go. If a student like me, who managed to stay top of the classes in elite universities, still needed intense nurturing from my teachers, I'd imagine many more do as well.
Animats 2y ago
> I can’t help but recall Harrison Bergeron. That old SF story seems to come up rather often today. I read it decades ago, and never saw the 1995 made-for-TV movie.[1] For decades it was forgotten. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron_(film)
- alephnerd 2y ago
  It was taught in my middle school English class in the Bay Area in the 2000s, but they also utilized tracking.
PittleyDunkin 2y ago
> Focusing on equality of outcomes Is this a thing? I hear conservative people complain about it a lot, but I have no clue what this looks like.
- polski-g 2y ago
  It looks like this: https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-faas-hiring-scandal-a-quick-overview https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-faas-hiring-scandal-...
  - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
    That doesn't seem to be a problem in practice as discriminatory hiring around protected classes is illegal. Regardless—point taken.
- csa 2y ago
  > but I have no clue what this looks like An earlier version of the CA academic framework (2022?) wanted all students to take algebra in 9th grade, rather than letting some folks start in 8th grade. Why this matters: - algebra in 8th grade allows for calculus to be reached by 12th grade by taking just one math class per year. - conversely, 9th grade algebra means that a student would need to double up in math one year, which means that they have to give up a slot in another HS class in order to make room for the extra math class. - calculus in high school is one key to get into competitive schools and programs, so this is seen as a desirable goal for academically inclined folks. The reason this policy was proposed was that the folks in the faster track were not of a similar racial proportion as the entire student population, so it was deemed discriminatory. The policy solution was to make it much more difficult for folks who aimed to end up in 12th grade calculus to do so. Note that there was no broad support of this parents of the kids in the accelerated math program or by parents of those who weren’t. This was a policy that was created by a group of so-called progressives who were happy to lower the overall group achievement level by limiting access in order to manufacture “equality” in the enrollment numbers (the outcome). There was basically a revolt, and this become a policy suggestion rather than a requirement, but California made that change under duress rather than agreeing with the dissenters. Note that this type of thinking is very common and very popular in the education academic/“intellectual” circles. They assume that people will eventually come around to their way of thinking. Imho, they are completely out of touch with (and largely have disdain for) “normal” people. Is this a clear example without any conservative baggage? Edit - here is an article that discusses this topic: https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/california-adopts-controversial-new-math-framework-heres-whats-in-it/2023/07 https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/california-adopts-c...
VoodooJuJu 2y ago
>Imho, the only viable/main solution is to acknowledge that we all aren’t equal How do you do that though? How do you knock down an idea that: - has at least hundreds of millions of subscribers, for many of whom the idea is an unassailable religious tenet - has survived and endured for centuries (Lindy) - manifests itself in the form of laws, businesses, and NGOs, and is propped up by violence, and also by the hundreds of billions of dollars behind those organizations Even if the idea is wrong, with all this momentum behind it, with all this skin people have in the game, all they've invested into it, how do you get people to abandon the idea?
eitally 2y ago
For better or for worse, when I was in school in the 80s and early 90s, tracking started in about 4th grade (not counting kids who skipped earlier grades entirely). I essentially had about 90% the same kids in all my classes from 4th grade through high school graduation (not counting the influx from other feeder schools that joined in 6th & 9th). The result was less distraction in the classroom because everyone wanted to be there and was focused on learning, and much tighter rapport among the classmates. A lot of people make their best friends in college, but in my case, the friend groups that sustained frequently began in elementary and middle school! The downside to early tracking is that it becomes increasingly difficult for kids on remedial and standard tracks to break into G&T/advanced classes with each successive year, but it's pretty easy to create an exception-based assessment process to facilitate these moves. Fast forward to today, where I have three kids in three public neighborhood schools in San Jose. Math tracking starts in middle school and is based exclusively on students' NWEA (https://www.nwea.org/ https://www.nwea.org/) scores, which determine whether you're placed in accelerated math, standard math or remedial math in 6th grade. Some schools let kids move into the accelerated track in 7th grade based on their 6th grade achievement, but many don't [because the 6th grade accelerated curriculum includes the entirety of 6th-8th grade "standard math" curricula, and expecting a kid who only received 1/3rd of that as a 6th grader to miraculously know the other 2/3rds as they start 7th grade isn't reasonable]. The result, from what I can tell, is that you have all kinds of mixed grade classes in high school now, since kids of essentially any grade could be taking the same classes (whether AP classes or core curriculum, or even electives). It's frankly a mess, and the level of distraction is off the charts. Overall, achievement of G&T students is lower and the kids at the lower end are suffering, too, because they're also not receiving differentiated instruction at the level they often need. In my opinion, it's a great illustration of how DEI policies applied to public education can fail all student demographics. On the plus side, ironically, the social/emotional maturity of kids these days far exceeds generations past.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
  >the social/emotional maturity of kids these days far exceeds generations past. I thought they were plagued by anxiety?
insane_dreamer 2y ago
> Imho, the only viable/main solution is to acknowledge that we all aren’t equal, we don’t all have access to the same opportunities, but as a country we can implement policies that lessen the imbalance. that's exactly what these school policies in CA and elsewhere are attempting to do; we can argue about which method might be the most effective, but no matter what you will find anecdotal examples about why X method "doesn't work". The problem, or a problem, is that the problems the schools are trying to fix are deeply rooted in social inequality and much of that takes place outside the school. Striving for less inequality in general will also help solve the inequality in education problem. Finland's approach is based on equality and has been very effective.
- csa 2y ago
  > that's exactly what these school policies in CA and elsewhere are attempting to do Hmm… either I wasn’t clear, or we are talking about different things. Maybe I should have added “lessen the imbalance of access to opportunities” to be extra clear. California is creating equality of academic outcomes by reducing the access to academic opportunities — certain races can’t stand out if they simply aren’t given the chance to do so. The examples I gave of Head Start and well-run gifted and talented programs focus on increasing academic opportunities. One of these is inherently regressive, and the other is inherently progressive. > Striving for less inequality in general will also help solve the inequality in education problem. I think we are advocating for the same goal. To be clear about the how, I strongly advocate for increasing access to academic opportunities rather than limiting access to academic opportunities in order to generate an equality of outcomes at an overall lower level.
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    > To be clear about the how, I strongly advocate for increasing access to academic opportunities rather than limiting access to academic opportunities in order to generate an equality of outcomes at an overall lower level. I agree. We may quibble about the details of how best go about achieving that, but yes, this is the goal.
giancarlostoro 2y ago
Had never read this before. https://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html https://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html Edit: I've heard of it before, especially on HN and Slashdot, but forgot entirely about it.
sunshowers 2y ago
While I think each student should be challenged in ways that cause their skills to develop, unequal opportunities lead to unequal outcomes which in turn lead to unequal opportunities and so on. There isn't really a separation between opportunities and outcomes that way. But you also have to balance this with people in such programs not thinking of themselves as superior to others. This seems really hard -- I think it needs to be made clear that the goal is equalizing academic difficulty, not special treatment.
- kelnos 2y ago
  I didn't think the GP was arguing that. School systems are focusing on equality of outcomes, when they should be focusing on equality of opportunities. Gifted kids will be able to take better advantage of those opportunities and experience better outcomes. But that's ok; that should be how things work. When you focus only on equal outcomes, you end up with the lowest common denominator, and gifted kids get bored and don't excel. When I was growing up (80s), I was in a program for gifted kids. I do expect that I got opportunities that other kids didn't get, which is a problem. But ultimately I thrived and have become successful, and I'm sure programs like that helped. In middle school and high school I was always placed in the highest-level classes (there were 4 levels), and I am certain I wouldn't be as successful had I been given the same instruction as kids in the bottom level or two. My outcomes were certainly better, but as long as everyone has the opportunity for advanced instruction -- if they have an aptitude and can qualify for it -- I think that's fine. I'm sure there was some inequality of opportunity when I was in grade school, and that sort of thing does need to be fixed. But we can't do so in a way that assumes all kids are equally gifted and talented. That's just not how people work.
  - sunshowers 2y ago
    To be clear I think the goal should not be to equalize opportunities or outcomes. I think the goal should be to equalize the amount of challenge each student experiences, wherever they are. (It's like strength training.)
jdougan 2y ago
> “In my early days it was an article of faith among a selfstyled ‘intellectual elite’ that they could teach calculus to a horse . . if they started early enough, spent enough money, supplied special tutoring, and were endlessly patient and always careful not to bruise his equine ego. They were so sincere that it seems downright ungrateful that the horse always persisted in being a horse. Especially as they were right . . if ‘starting early enough’ is defined as a million years or more."
- hirvi74 2y ago
  László Polgár kind of did it three times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/László_Polgár https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/László_Polgár
thaumasiotes 2y ago
> Imho, the only viable/main solution is to acknowledge that we all aren’t equal, we don’t all have access to the same opportunities, but as a country we can implement policies that lessen the imbalance. But lessening the imbalance is the opposite of what you want. Say you have $300 to invest in educating one student. If you invest it in the stupid student, that student will develop $100 of learning, and the imbalance will shrink by a small amount. If you invest it in the smart student, that student will develop $300 of learning, and the imbalance will grow by a large amount. Which is better?
immibis 2y ago
Which policies? What you've said is something the right wing frequently asserts is happening, but can never say how. It goes in the same bucket as "mexico is invading us" and "Portland burned to the ground during BLM" until proven otherwise.
sirspacey 2y ago
It’s working out for many of the gifted kids I meet because it pushes their parents to put them in charter/private/montessori There really isn’t a “gifted” program in a public school setting. Mostly it’s just more volume of work, not acceleration of learning. Head Start is certainly one of the better programs, but it’s not great compared to a Montessori or Project-Based Learning approach. Another factor: in public school kids are generally punished socially for doing significantly above average. They learn to isolate their emotional selves from everyone and become a “success object” for the school. It’s so critical for all children, including our best and brightest, to experience being valued as a person distinct from their performance. As Paul G has often said, following your interest is how to maximize your potential for impact. Public schools for a long time fought to hang on to top performing students to improve outcomes. I think the push against outcome-based approached is necessary, if misguided in this case. Outcome based policies have failed, wholesale, across the globe. They create strange, unproductive learning environments where signals of learning become the only thing children work on. “Most Likely to Succeed” is a phenomenal book on why outcomes-based learning is a farce and what the better way is.

by csa 2y ago

philipov 2y ago

While I may have sympathy for your more substantive points, anytime I hear someone mention virtue signalling, it makes it sound like they're virtue signalling. Better to just not bring up that dog whistle.

exe34 2y ago
it's a perfectly good phrase to describe what it says. if that bothers you, maybe you need to ask yourself why.
- lern_too_spel 2y ago
  In my experience, people who use the term "virtue signalling" don't understand the problems that the supposed virtue signalers are trying to solve and simply use the term as a cheap dismissal of their policies. If the policies are bad, explain why they're bad. Don't just say that people putting the 10 Commandments in schools are virtue signalling.
  - exe34 2y ago
    Or indeed, it's possible that neither you nor the virtue signallers understand why they're doing it.
    - aspenmayer 2y ago
      Regardless of whether or not either interlocutor understands the term, using the term virtue signaling itself is self-defeating for both parties for different reasons. For the one hearing it, it’s a red herring, and for the one saying it, it’s a dog whistle. For the third party person reading the interaction without or with lesser context, it’s a thought-terminating cliche.
      - exe34 2y ago
        > For the third party person reading the interaction without or with lesser context, it’s a thought-terminating cliche. if one's thought is so easily terminated, maybe there wasn't as much thought as one might think to begin with.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        aspenmayer 2y ago
        If good faith weren't a prerequisite for reasoned debate, perhaps.
        exe34 2y ago
        remember, we're talking about somebody getting triggered by the words "virtue-signalling", so I think good faith left the conversation a few stops back.
        aspenmayer 2y ago
        This is part of why it’s a bad term - its meaning is almost impossible to understand even in context because it means different things to different people and people read a lot into it. It’s kind of overloaded and seems like flamebait to me, I guess. Some interesting bits here as well (italics added for emphasis): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling > However, some argue that these expressions of outrage or moral alignment may reflect genuine concern, and that accusing others of virtue signalling can itself be a form of signalling. This has led to the coining of a related concept, vice signalling, which refers to the public promotion of negative or controversial views to appear tough, pragmatic, or rebellious, often for political or social capital. I would add on and argue that using the term virtue signaling is itself an example of virtue signaling.
- standardUser 2y ago
  > if that bothers you, maybe you need to ask yourself why. That's even vaguer and less compelling rhetoric than "virtue signaling".
hombre_fatal 2y ago
I have to agree. It's distracting because it's a low signal quip that asserts that your opponents have no substance behind their views beyond looking good. Just make your argument. Even if this were the rare valid application of it, it's so overused as a low effort attack that the comment is no better off for using it. Finally, we have to contend with the fact that people earnestly believe in the things they say and do. If it were just for optics and they didn't actually hold their positions, these issues would be far easier to deal with.
- Jensson 2y ago
  > If it were just for optics and they didn't actually hold their positions, these issues would be far easier to deal with. No, then it would have been easier. Virtue signaling is so hard to deal with since people don't want to lose their virtue, they have to stay the course and continue to upheld that what they did was virtuous or they lose all their hard work. A good sign is if you call your opponents names rather than try to win them over, then you are just virtue signaling instead of trying to fix anything, insults doesn't improve anything except act as signaling. This is how most politicians acts, it tend to make you very popular and make your tribe view you as very virtuous, virtue signaling works.
- cloverich 2y ago
  > It's distracting because it's a low signal quip that asserts that your opponents have no substance behind their views beyond looking good. Just make your argument. That is the argument. > Finally, we have to contend with the fact that people earnestly believe in the things they say and do. If it were just for optics and they didn't actually hold their positions, these issues would be far easier to deal with. The point of the argument isn't that people don't genuinely believe these issues. Its that they participate in these views in earnest because of social conformity as opposed to a genuine understanding of, and commonly without any intention of helping resolve them. The symptom then is blindly electing leaders with no real plan (or worse) and the result is predictably poor outcomes. Its used as a battering ram in discussions; I thought it was a dog whistle too before moving out to the West coast by my god it really is everywhere here, and it really does stifle discussion. Its a real issue.

phil21 2y ago

> Killing truly progressive programs for the purpose of virtue signaling is a loss for society It's not just a loss for society. It's society-killing. Taking resources away from those who move society forward and spending them on those who are unlikely to "pay it back" is a way your culture dies. Conquerers in the past used this strategy to win massive empires for themselves. It's a ridiculous self-own. This is perhaps the sole political topic I will die on a hill for.

cogman10 2y ago
> Taking resources away from those who move society forward and spending them on those who are unlikely to "pay it back" is a way your culture dies. What does this even mean? To me, the measure of a healthy society is how that society treats those that are "unlikely to pay it back". The most unhealthy societies treat unwanted humans as disposable refuse. For example, I don't think we'd call the culture/society of the 1900s US particularly healthy. Yet that was probably the peak of the US keeping resources in the hands of "those who move society forward" the robber barons and monopolists. We didn't think anything of working to death unwanted 5 year olds that were unlikely to make a positive impact on society. As for "dying culture" that to me is a very different thing from society. Societies can have multiple cultures present and healthy societies tolerate multiple cultures. > Conquerers in the past used this strategy to win massive empires for themselves. Which conquerers? I can think of no historical example where a conquerer somehow convinced a target to take care of their needy so they could conquer. > This is perhaps the sole political topic I will die on a hill for. I'm really interested in the foundation of these beliefs. What are the specific historical examples you are thinking of when you make these statements? Or is it mostly current events that you consider?
- gowld 2y ago
  You can't imagine interpreting the parent comment for its clear face value -- that supporting outlier high achievers helps everyone in society? The inventor of a vaccine or a microchip or a sculpture doesn't hoard the invention for themself. Meanwhile, societies like USSR and Communist China, that persecuted their geniuses, collapsed their previously great societies.

Simon_ORourke 2y ago

> the gifted and talented communities. As in gifted and talented individuals who form a community, or all these folks from this ethnic background you think are talented? Because if it's the former then I'm surprised they've got a community going, and if it's the latter you would be better served getting the calipers out and go measure some skulls instead to promote that nonsense.

ctoth 2y ago
> As in gifted and talented individuals who form a community, or all these folks from this ethnic background you think are talented? Because if it's the former then I'm surprised they've got a community going "A recent analysis in Nature caused a stir by pointing out that the vast majority of Nobel Prize winners belong to the same academic family. Of 736 researchers who have won the Big Recognition, 702 group together into one huge connected academic lineage (with lineage broadly defined as when one scientist “mentors” another, usually in the form of being their PhD advisor)." > getting the calipers out and go measure some skulls Please, just stop. [0]: Yes, scientific progress depends on like a thousand people https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/yes-scientific-progress-depends-on https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/yes-scientific-pro... [1]: How to win a Nobel prize https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586-024-02897-2/index.html#section-J5DGxuc7ca https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586-024-02897-2/index.ht...
- stonesthrowaway 2y ago
  > [0]: Yes, scientific progress depends on like a thousand people https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/yes-scientific-pro https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/yes-scientific-pro... I agree with your overall message but it's those thousand people and the hundreds of thousands ( maybe millions ) of people who make the scientific progress possible. It takes a community and an infrastructure to turn a scientific discovery into scientific progress. Like it took thousands or millions of people to take the discoveries of von Neumann, Church, Turing, etc into something worthwhile.
wyldberry 2y ago
Gifted and talented communities are all the persons who meet a criteria to join said community. In children this is often scoring beyond grade-level in tests.

soco 2y ago

If it was that simple I'm sure we would have seen it already. I imagine any gifted program, and you can imagine it in any way you like, will inevitably promote a majority from a certain group, thus by definition will be a target for every discrimination complaint - because basically it will be supporting and pumping more money to an already privileged group. So somebody has to decide: either targeted to constant fussing and worse, or no program at all and wait for the somewhat fewer gifted from the group with possibilities to still bubble up. Of course this can change every few years, and given a ideal situation when you had addressed the challenges of poverty, you can draft now a challenge-free gifted program. Note: From the start we assume that the gifted deserve more from public school, thus we call them "neglected" when they seem to be simply treated the same.

Jensson 2y ago
> Note: From the start we assume that the gifted deserve more from public school, thus we call them "neglected" when they seem to be simply treated the same. Do you think challenged kids deserve more from public school than anyone else? The point is that different kids has different needs, the general classroom is designed for the average student and doesn't fit those who are very different regardless in what way they are different.
- anon84873628 2y ago
  >Do you think challenged kids deserve more from public school than anyone else? Well, let's say we can only spend the money on one group or the other. One could argue that the disadvantaged kids should be prioritized because they need more help, and are less likely to succeed without it. Whereas gifted kids might be bored in school and do worse than if they had dedicated programs, but they still have the chance to find enrichment outside of school or catch up later in life. Of course, whether those statements are true would need to be an area of research. How would you calculate the overall ROI for society between the two options? Is it more import to "lift up the bottom" or "accelerate the top"? And of course ideally we would do both. I'm just saying it's not surprising that most (liberal / social democrat type) people will default to supporting the "more needy" first.

BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago

What we oughta do is make a system where state education funding is equally distributed (per student capita) to all the schools in a state. Local funding by property taxes, while not most of the funding for schools, also needs to go. We also oughta try and tackle the administrative bloat on a federal level to get more of that money going to things that directly help students. I agree equality of outcome is a hopeless endeavor when schools are so dramatically unequal in the states, but I also think we could address that inequality of opportunity with better funding policy.

onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
Why? It costs a lot more to build a new school or maintain an existing one in The Bay than in Fresno. It also costs more for teachers since the cost of living is so much higher.
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
  Yeah that’s fair, you might need to make the formula more complicated. The goal though would be to alter what we have now, which is extreme differences in quality between schools in rich areas and schools in poor ones, to a model where everyone can access a similarly decent quality of public schooling. Maybe the formula would need to look something like (the money required to maintain the school building) + (a wage thats similar to the wages for other teachers in the state, with cost of living factored in) * (the best teacher to student ratio achievable across the state) * (student count at the school)
  - gowld 2y ago
    You might be surprised to learn that this is how education funding already works. Government isn't completely idiotic. What you are ignoring is that educational spending imbalance comes from private voluntary educational spending (enrichment programs, camps, PTA), not public mandatory spending.
toast0 2y ago
In California, there are only a handful of "Basic Aid" school districts where property tax funds exceed the minimum "revenue limit" per pupil that state government will provide funding to reach otherwise. That does include several of the school districts in the SF Bay Area, but the vast majority of the state is already under a state funding formula based on attendance and additions for certain types of needs. Other states have different situations. Washington state is largely funded locally, with unfunded mandates set by the state; and many of the districts have issues with unbalanced budgets in recent years.

iwontberude 2y ago

Functionally talented and gifted students autodidact to their interests which is a much better outcome than institutionalized bullshit schooling. I deeply disagree with your assessment that institutional learning is some universal booster for smart people and shows your own personal bias. So in balance of your position: I think it grinds down a students willpower and spirit to be placed on a pedestal to be given more resources than other kids. I’m willing to meet in the middle and say either system is equally depressive of students for learning in a way that leads to benefits for society.

roguecoder 2y ago
Learning from teachers is a skill that can be learned, and taught. Being unable to learn from others or collaborate with others will vastly limit what gifted children can accomplish in life. Not teaching those skills as skills sets gifted children up for failure in college and the workplace. There's also other skills that are very often difficult for "gifted" kids to learn: rejection sensitivity disorder, for example, is often comorbid. Somatic exercises, learning to pay attention to our bodies and not just our intellect. Note taking. Slicing problems into small pieces it is okay to fail. All of these are things conventional education assumes kids will pick up on their own. We have actual studies on the results of unschooling gifted kids, and the outcomes are not good. It is much better if they can be coached on skills they don't have, even when those are skills other people acquire passively without having to be taught. It doesn't necessarily take "more" resources to educate gifted children: it takes differentiated resources. "Your brain works differently, so this classroom works better for you" is just as true for learning disabilities as it is for "gifted" students.
- iwontberude 2y ago
  I’m not advocating for isolation, rather I’m talking about anarchy. Being able to self select who you learn from and not being in a graded and tracked institutional setting. It’s soulless and contrived.

couchdb_ouchdb 2y ago

We just ejected from Seattle Public Schools for this reason. My daughter, as a gifted student, was basically ignored by her teachers for the last 3 years because she was smart, and therefore they didn't have to worry about her. But, by ignoring her, she atrophied. Her standardized testing scores dropped every year. She no longer cared about learning. It truly is a regression to the mean.

frmersdog 2y ago
In what way are you certain that she's gifted?
- threatofrain 2y ago
  IMO any student that is 1-2 years ahead can be considered gifted for the purposes of parents who are thinking about how to optimize public or private education for their kids. Based on how a lot of education systems work in the US (recognizing only discrete progress in a student), if your child is 1-2 years ahead then that's worth recognizing and start nurturing. That's about when public schools also recognize the giftedness of a student. You don't need brilliant children to achieve this kind of advantage, just a careful eye and consistent nurturing.
  - gowld 2y ago
    The OP strongly tries to claim (before contradicting herself in the concluding pargraph) that gifted is a major psychological difference, not merely being smart and a fast learner.
    - DiggyJohnson 2y ago
      Can you quote where you are seeing that I didn't get that reading at all from GP.
- couchdb_ouchdb 2y ago
  In Seattle, there's actually a test you can take to get you into the "HCC" program which is the gifted program in Seattle Public Schools. Seattle, however, has been trying (successfully) for years to dismantle it. So even if you pass the test, there's not very many places that you can go to get these services.

jltsiren 2y ago

I don't have much experience with how education works in California, or in the US in general. But there is one universal issue with special programs for gifted kids: parents. It's hard to distinguish gifted kids from average kids with ambitious parents. If you let ambitious parents push their kids to programs they are not qualified for, they can easily ruin the programs for the actual gifted kids. Gifted programs work best when people don't consider them prestigious or think that they will improve the life outcomes for the participants. When they are more about individual interests than status and objective gains.

scarmig 2y ago
Naming the programs gifted and creating a gifted identity is the core issue. Instead, call it something like asynchronous development, and place kids in classes appropriate to their pace of development. I'm hopeful that AI can offer highly individualized education to each kid, and get around this issue entirely.
- Jensson 2y ago
  > Instead, call it something like asynchronous development "Differently abled" works just fine both ways, that there is stigma attached to the title helps since it means parents wont push for it for no reason.
- xeromal 2y ago
  The problem with changing the terminology is that people/kids are clever enough to turn it to a diss regardless. It's only a matter of time. Anyways, I don't see the big deal. I was too dumb to make it into gifted classes in school but it's not like that stopped me from going to college. I just went to a lesser college. Still make good money
Spoom 2y ago
In Ontario, access to these programs was gated by an IQ test given to all students based on the outcome of a standardized test (this was ~30 years ago, no idea what they do today). I'm not saying it was perfectly objective or equitable but it was a start at trying to make it objective. Are programs not doing something similar in California or elsewhere in the US?

hintymad 2y ago

> Killing truly progressive programs for the purpose of virtue signaling is a loss for society I wonder if the progressives ever wondered why so many Chinese students or Indian students could excel in the STEM programs of those top universities? Like we grew up with our parents making less than $500 a month in the early 2000s if we were lucky. Heck, a family from countryside or a small town probably made $200 a month or less. Like we studied English with a couple of cassettes and our English was so broken that we couldn't even clear custom when entering the US. Like our schools lost power every few days, and our teachers printed our exams and handouts using a manual mimeograph machine. Like I didn't even know touch typing before I got into college. Like I thought only experts could use a personal computer and typing "DIR" under DOS was so fascinating. Yeah, we were that poor. Yet, our teachers did one thing right: they did their job. They pushed us. They did't give up on us. They tried every way to make sure their explanation is clear, intuitive, and inspiring. They designed amazing problem sets to make sure we truly understand the fundamentals of math, physics, and chemistry. They didn't shy away from telling us that we didn't do a good job. They forced us to write essays every day, to solve problems every day, and in general to learn deeply every day. I still remembered the sly smile when my chemistry teacher made sure we could solve the ICO-style multi-step synthesis in organic chemistry. So, yeah, many of us wouldn't be where we are today if our teachers hadn't pushed hard on us. Equity my ass.

laidoffamazon 2y ago
It’s really strange that you have such emotional reactions to the concept of equity while my Indian middle class IIT educated dad who experienced Indian institutional failure in the 70s and 80s never really cared about if me or my sibling were in the G&T program. What separates you from the people that didn’t make it out?
- hintymad 2y ago
  I don't care about G&T program per se, either. Nor did my country have it when I grew up. I do care about education. I guess my fundamental assumption is that when everyone maximizes their full potential, the outcome will naturally be different. So, pushing students to realize their potential will be against equity, but will be the best way to minimize the equity gap. Now the nuances for us in the US specifically: the US system is really good for the most and the least talented. The most talented get access to all kinds of free yet prestigious programs and camps, excellent books in local libraries, and professors in colleges. The least talented are carefully looked after, and they don't necessarily have much pressure to get into a college, and rightly so. It is, unfortunately, the vast middle who get hurt because they squander their time in school. They think they have learned, but they barely scratch the surface. NYT used to report that a straight-A student dreamed to become a scientist, yet couldn't even pass placement test of her college. Malcom mentioned in his book David and Goliath that a straight-A student failed her organic chemistry class in Brown University. Similarly in my personal experience, if it weren't for my teacher, I wouldn't know how deep I could go. If a student like me, who managed to stay top of the classes in elite universities, still needed intense nurturing from my teachers, I'd imagine many more do as well.

Animats 2y ago

> I can’t help but recall Harrison Bergeron. That old SF story seems to come up rather often today. I read it decades ago, and never saw the 1995 made-for-TV movie.[1] For decades it was forgotten. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron_(film)

alephnerd 2y ago
It was taught in my middle school English class in the Bay Area in the 2000s, but they also utilized tracking.

PittleyDunkin 2y ago

> Focusing on equality of outcomes Is this a thing? I hear conservative people complain about it a lot, but I have no clue what this looks like.

polski-g 2y ago
It looks like this: https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-faas-hiring-scandal-a-quick-overview https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-faas-hiring-scandal-...
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago
  That doesn't seem to be a problem in practice as discriminatory hiring around protected classes is illegal. Regardless—point taken.
csa 2y ago
> but I have no clue what this looks like An earlier version of the CA academic framework (2022?) wanted all students to take algebra in 9th grade, rather than letting some folks start in 8th grade. Why this matters: - algebra in 8th grade allows for calculus to be reached by 12th grade by taking just one math class per year. - conversely, 9th grade algebra means that a student would need to double up in math one year, which means that they have to give up a slot in another HS class in order to make room for the extra math class. - calculus in high school is one key to get into competitive schools and programs, so this is seen as a desirable goal for academically inclined folks. The reason this policy was proposed was that the folks in the faster track were not of a similar racial proportion as the entire student population, so it was deemed discriminatory. The policy solution was to make it much more difficult for folks who aimed to end up in 12th grade calculus to do so. Note that there was no broad support of this parents of the kids in the accelerated math program or by parents of those who weren’t. This was a policy that was created by a group of so-called progressives who were happy to lower the overall group achievement level by limiting access in order to manufacture “equality” in the enrollment numbers (the outcome). There was basically a revolt, and this become a policy suggestion rather than a requirement, but California made that change under duress rather than agreeing with the dissenters. Note that this type of thinking is very common and very popular in the education academic/“intellectual” circles. They assume that people will eventually come around to their way of thinking. Imho, they are completely out of touch with (and largely have disdain for) “normal” people. Is this a clear example without any conservative baggage? Edit - here is an article that discusses this topic: https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/california-adopts-controversial-new-math-framework-heres-whats-in-it/2023/07 https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/california-adopts-c...

VoodooJuJu 2y ago

>Imho, the only viable/main solution is to acknowledge that we all aren’t equal How do you do that though? How do you knock down an idea that: - has at least hundreds of millions of subscribers, for many of whom the idea is an unassailable religious tenet - has survived and endured for centuries (Lindy) - manifests itself in the form of laws, businesses, and NGOs, and is propped up by violence, and also by the hundreds of billions of dollars behind those organizations Even if the idea is wrong, with all this momentum behind it, with all this skin people have in the game, all they've invested into it, how do you get people to abandon the idea?

eitally 2y ago

For better or for worse, when I was in school in the 80s and early 90s, tracking started in about 4th grade (not counting kids who skipped earlier grades entirely). I essentially had about 90% the same kids in all my classes from 4th grade through high school graduation (not counting the influx from other feeder schools that joined in 6th & 9th). The result was less distraction in the classroom because everyone wanted to be there and was focused on learning, and much tighter rapport among the classmates. A lot of people make their best friends in college, but in my case, the friend groups that sustained frequently began in elementary and middle school! The downside to early tracking is that it becomes increasingly difficult for kids on remedial and standard tracks to break into G&T/advanced classes with each successive year, but it's pretty easy to create an exception-based assessment process to facilitate these moves. Fast forward to today, where I have three kids in three public neighborhood schools in San Jose. Math tracking starts in middle school and is based exclusively on students' NWEA (https://www.nwea.org/ https://www.nwea.org/) scores, which determine whether you're placed in accelerated math, standard math or remedial math in 6th grade. Some schools let kids move into the accelerated track in 7th grade based on their 6th grade achievement, but many don't [because the 6th grade accelerated curriculum includes the entirety of 6th-8th grade "standard math" curricula, and expecting a kid who only received 1/3rd of that as a 6th grader to miraculously know the other 2/3rds as they start 7th grade isn't reasonable]. The result, from what I can tell, is that you have all kinds of mixed grade classes in high school now, since kids of essentially any grade could be taking the same classes (whether AP classes or core curriculum, or even electives). It's frankly a mess, and the level of distraction is off the charts. Overall, achievement of G&T students is lower and the kids at the lower end are suffering, too, because they're also not receiving differentiated instruction at the level they often need. In my opinion, it's a great illustration of how DEI policies applied to public education can fail all student demographics. On the plus side, ironically, the social/emotional maturity of kids these days far exceeds generations past.

0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
>the social/emotional maturity of kids these days far exceeds generations past. I thought they were plagued by anxiety?

insane_dreamer 2y ago

> Imho, the only viable/main solution is to acknowledge that we all aren’t equal, we don’t all have access to the same opportunities, but as a country we can implement policies that lessen the imbalance. that's exactly what these school policies in CA and elsewhere are attempting to do; we can argue about which method might be the most effective, but no matter what you will find anecdotal examples about why X method "doesn't work". The problem, or a problem, is that the problems the schools are trying to fix are deeply rooted in social inequality and much of that takes place outside the school. Striving for less inequality in general will also help solve the inequality in education problem. Finland's approach is based on equality and has been very effective.

csa 2y ago
> that's exactly what these school policies in CA and elsewhere are attempting to do Hmm… either I wasn’t clear, or we are talking about different things. Maybe I should have added “lessen the imbalance of access to opportunities” to be extra clear. California is creating equality of academic outcomes by reducing the access to academic opportunities — certain races can’t stand out if they simply aren’t given the chance to do so. The examples I gave of Head Start and well-run gifted and talented programs focus on increasing academic opportunities. One of these is inherently regressive, and the other is inherently progressive. > Striving for less inequality in general will also help solve the inequality in education problem. I think we are advocating for the same goal. To be clear about the how, I strongly advocate for increasing access to academic opportunities rather than limiting access to academic opportunities in order to generate an equality of outcomes at an overall lower level.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  > To be clear about the how, I strongly advocate for increasing access to academic opportunities rather than limiting access to academic opportunities in order to generate an equality of outcomes at an overall lower level. I agree. We may quibble about the details of how best go about achieving that, but yes, this is the goal.

giancarlostoro 2y ago

Had never read this before. https://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html https://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html Edit: I've heard of it before, especially on HN and Slashdot, but forgot entirely about it.

sunshowers 2y ago

While I think each student should be challenged in ways that cause their skills to develop, unequal opportunities lead to unequal outcomes which in turn lead to unequal opportunities and so on. There isn't really a separation between opportunities and outcomes that way. But you also have to balance this with people in such programs not thinking of themselves as superior to others. This seems really hard -- I think it needs to be made clear that the goal is equalizing academic difficulty, not special treatment.

kelnos 2y ago
I didn't think the GP was arguing that. School systems are focusing on equality of outcomes, when they should be focusing on equality of opportunities. Gifted kids will be able to take better advantage of those opportunities and experience better outcomes. But that's ok; that should be how things work. When you focus only on equal outcomes, you end up with the lowest common denominator, and gifted kids get bored and don't excel. When I was growing up (80s), I was in a program for gifted kids. I do expect that I got opportunities that other kids didn't get, which is a problem. But ultimately I thrived and have become successful, and I'm sure programs like that helped. In middle school and high school I was always placed in the highest-level classes (there were 4 levels), and I am certain I wouldn't be as successful had I been given the same instruction as kids in the bottom level or two. My outcomes were certainly better, but as long as everyone has the opportunity for advanced instruction -- if they have an aptitude and can qualify for it -- I think that's fine. I'm sure there was some inequality of opportunity when I was in grade school, and that sort of thing does need to be fixed. But we can't do so in a way that assumes all kids are equally gifted and talented. That's just not how people work.
- sunshowers 2y ago
  To be clear I think the goal should not be to equalize opportunities or outcomes. I think the goal should be to equalize the amount of challenge each student experiences, wherever they are. (It's like strength training.)

jdougan 2y ago

> “In my early days it was an article of faith among a selfstyled ‘intellectual elite’ that they could teach calculus to a horse . . if they started early enough, spent enough money, supplied special tutoring, and were endlessly patient and always careful not to bruise his equine ego. They were so sincere that it seems downright ungrateful that the horse always persisted in being a horse. Especially as they were right . . if ‘starting early enough’ is defined as a million years or more."

hirvi74 2y ago
László Polgár kind of did it three times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/László_Polgár https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/László_Polgár

thaumasiotes 2y ago

> Imho, the only viable/main solution is to acknowledge that we all aren’t equal, we don’t all have access to the same opportunities, but as a country we can implement policies that lessen the imbalance. But lessening the imbalance is the opposite of what you want. Say you have $300 to invest in educating one student. If you invest it in the stupid student, that student will develop $100 of learning, and the imbalance will shrink by a small amount. If you invest it in the smart student, that student will develop $300 of learning, and the imbalance will grow by a large amount. Which is better?

immibis 2y ago

Which policies? What you've said is something the right wing frequently asserts is happening, but can never say how. It goes in the same bucket as "mexico is invading us" and "Portland burned to the ground during BLM" until proven otherwise.

sirspacey 2y ago

It’s working out for many of the gifted kids I meet because it pushes their parents to put them in charter/private/montessori There really isn’t a “gifted” program in a public school setting. Mostly it’s just more volume of work, not acceleration of learning. Head Start is certainly one of the better programs, but it’s not great compared to a Montessori or Project-Based Learning approach. Another factor: in public school kids are generally punished socially for doing significantly above average. They learn to isolate their emotional selves from everyone and become a “success object” for the school. It’s so critical for all children, including our best and brightest, to experience being valued as a person distinct from their performance. As Paul G has often said, following your interest is how to maximize your potential for impact. Public schools for a long time fought to hang on to top performing students to improve outcomes. I think the push against outcome-based approached is necessary, if misguided in this case. Outcome based policies have failed, wholesale, across the globe. They create strange, unproductive learning environments where signals of learning become the only thing children work on. “Most Likely to Succeed” is a phenomenal book on why outcomes-based learning is a farce and what the better way is.