4 ms·

Smart children aren't being left behind, per se. You might say, rather, that their opportunities are being diluted by big leaps in the education of the margins

Smart children aren't being left behind, per se. You might say, rather, that their opportunities are being diluted by big leaps in the education of the margins of society. I wonder if we really know yet if this is good or bad for innovation.

ars 17y ago
> I wonder if we really know yet if this is good or bad for innovation. The top performers produce pretty much all the progress that is made in a field. From a global progress perspective, it's much more important for the top performers to advance than for the lower ones. On the other hand for the "everyone needs a job" perspective, and "not all progress is revolutionary, you still need people to do ordinary work" you need the bottom performers to advance. But this is not a zero sum game (as you imply). You can advance both, it's just not as many politicians care about the top performers. That's because politicians don't care about global progress, they care about bulk numbers: the majority of people need to be happy, and have incomes. And that implies helping the bottom and middle levels.
- akd 17y ago
  The highest achievers will always have to fight politics instead of depend on it, since while a top achiever may produce 1000x the societal contribution of an average achiever, he/she will still only have 1 vote.
  - diN0bot 17y ago
    Consider also: "For each decision, consider the impact on the next seven generations" If you can thrust up the lowest achievers into a better lifestyle, their children will be even better off. Why should "contribution to society" be limited to top achievers? Why should we be cynical about the ability of a democratic society to make decisions? SAT performance, and education performance in general, is heavily correlated with socioeconomic class. We should spend more on those who need more. The next generation will be substantially better off. Over time society should become "wealthier," able to help its citizens better as more are able to help themselves and others.
    - MaysonL 17y ago
      Take a look at http://www.hcz.org/our-results http://www.hcz.org/our-results It shows what kids from the lowest socioeconomic class can achieve, given support, encouragement, and an enriched learning environment from an early age. The kids in Promise Academy's third grade classes (scoring 100% at or above grade level in one school, and 96% at the other), had been intensive preschool since age three. Read the book Whatever It Takes by Paul Tough for more details of one of the most hope-inspiring stories in education today. One thing to consider in deciding how much to spend on education for poor students is the effect this will have on welfare and prison costs for the next generation.
tokenadult 17y ago
I wonder if we really know yet if this is good or bad for innovation. Based on international comparisons (I have lived in east Asia), I'd have to say that it helps a lot to give better, more challenging education to everyone, but also to allow the most able learners to find challenges appropriate for their abilities rather than to be slowed down by lockstep curricula. Most other countries think it's crazy not to "track" students by ability, while all thriving countries endeavor to provide good basic education to all learners.

ars 17y ago

> I wonder if we really know yet if this is good or bad for innovation. The top performers produce pretty much all the progress that is made in a field. From a global progress perspective, it's much more important for the top performers to advance than for the lower ones. On the other hand for the "everyone needs a job" perspective, and "not all progress is revolutionary, you still need people to do ordinary work" you need the bottom performers to advance. But this is not a zero sum game (as you imply). You can advance both, it's just not as many politicians care about the top performers. That's because politicians don't care about global progress, they care about bulk numbers: the majority of people need to be happy, and have incomes. And that implies helping the bottom and middle levels.

akd 17y ago
The highest achievers will always have to fight politics instead of depend on it, since while a top achiever may produce 1000x the societal contribution of an average achiever, he/she will still only have 1 vote.
- diN0bot 17y ago
  Consider also: "For each decision, consider the impact on the next seven generations" If you can thrust up the lowest achievers into a better lifestyle, their children will be even better off. Why should "contribution to society" be limited to top achievers? Why should we be cynical about the ability of a democratic society to make decisions? SAT performance, and education performance in general, is heavily correlated with socioeconomic class. We should spend more on those who need more. The next generation will be substantially better off. Over time society should become "wealthier," able to help its citizens better as more are able to help themselves and others.
  - MaysonL 17y ago
    Take a look at http://www.hcz.org/our-results http://www.hcz.org/our-results It shows what kids from the lowest socioeconomic class can achieve, given support, encouragement, and an enriched learning environment from an early age. The kids in Promise Academy's third grade classes (scoring 100% at or above grade level in one school, and 96% at the other), had been intensive preschool since age three. Read the book Whatever It Takes by Paul Tough for more details of one of the most hope-inspiring stories in education today. One thing to consider in deciding how much to spend on education for poor students is the effect this will have on welfare and prison costs for the next generation.

tokenadult 17y ago

I wonder if we really know yet if this is good or bad for innovation. Based on international comparisons (I have lived in east Asia), I'd have to say that it helps a lot to give better, more challenging education to everyone, but also to allow the most able learners to find challenges appropriate for their abilities rather than to be slowed down by lockstep curricula. Most other countries think it's crazy not to "track" students by ability, while all thriving countries endeavor to provide good basic education to all learners.