1. You talk about people who are told the deck is stacked against them so they’re destined to fail? What about disabled people both physically and mentally, visible and hidden? They have literal impediments and will be weaker on certain levels. Is the alternative to leave them to rot?
1. You talk about people who are told the deck is stacked against them so they’re destined to fail? What about disabled people both physically and mentally, visible and hidden? They have literal impediments and will be weaker on certain levels. Is the alternative to leave them to rot?
2. You talk about leaving education to the market. How do you protect from cult schools or Disney schools. Not all parents are bright enough to make the right choices.
this seems bizarre framing that amounts to a straw man. the discussion here was about the removal of advanced courses to hold the most gifted back in the name of equity and of dooming others to low attainment through soft bigotry. you seem to be running in a different direction altogether.
why must anyone be left to rot? those who need more help and/or easier classes or special modalities are not in AP. so? does this mean they are not in class? a class generalized for ALL students suits few. it's too hard for some and too easy for others. if some students have greater need, then they should get a class and curriculum suited to them, not some non-leveled average. i think you very much have the wrong end of this one on how to help the disabled. leveling classes helps, not hinders them. how are they served by being in a class that's simply too hard because it's tailored for "average"? what benefit is served?
we have cult schools and disney schools now. that's the whole problem. many of our schools are a joke. anything will be better. you seem to be engaging in precisely the soft bigotry that's such a problem here. "parents are too dumb to know better" is awfully patronizing, no?
so, what, we should force the same rules and structures that have failed so miserably on them with, perhaps, some new rules and structures piled on top? that's a disaster. it's also not how markets work.
few people know how to build fuel injectors. yet pretty much every car comes with excellent ones. because the market makes sure of it. it sees outcomes and bad car companies fail. even if you know little about how to buy a new car, all the choices ae so good that's it's hard to make a serious mistake. this is because competition breeds competence. monopoly and self serving unions breed the opposite.
it is exactly the sort of "parents are too dumb to be trusted to pick a school" thinking that stops good choices from being made available. it's patronizing, dismissive, and fails to take into account the manner in which market discipline functions. try applying that logic to, say, restaurants or buying a dishwasher and you'll see how it falls apart.
you're trying to make the perfect the enemy of the excellent. that is no way to build a school system.
1. How does preventing those who are stronger/smarter from learning and achievement protect those who are weaker? Can’t we have protections for those who need assistance to help push them upwards, rather than instituting policies that bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator?
2. Right now parents don’t have a choice at all, unless they are rich enough to afford private school. You seem to think it is better for *all* to fail and be indoctrinated into Critical Race Theory rather than take the chance that some parents will make better choices than others.
Mr Gato, I have questions.
1. You talk about people who are told the deck is stacked against them so they’re destined to fail? What about disabled people both physically and mentally, visible and hidden? They have literal impediments and will be weaker on certain levels. Is the alternative to leave them to rot?
2. You talk about leaving education to the market. How do you protect from cult schools or Disney schools. Not all parents are bright enough to make the right choices.
this seems bizarre framing that amounts to a straw man. the discussion here was about the removal of advanced courses to hold the most gifted back in the name of equity and of dooming others to low attainment through soft bigotry. you seem to be running in a different direction altogether.
why must anyone be left to rot? those who need more help and/or easier classes or special modalities are not in AP. so? does this mean they are not in class? a class generalized for ALL students suits few. it's too hard for some and too easy for others. if some students have greater need, then they should get a class and curriculum suited to them, not some non-leveled average. i think you very much have the wrong end of this one on how to help the disabled. leveling classes helps, not hinders them. how are they served by being in a class that's simply too hard because it's tailored for "average"? what benefit is served?
we have cult schools and disney schools now. that's the whole problem. many of our schools are a joke. anything will be better. you seem to be engaging in precisely the soft bigotry that's such a problem here. "parents are too dumb to know better" is awfully patronizing, no?
so, what, we should force the same rules and structures that have failed so miserably on them with, perhaps, some new rules and structures piled on top? that's a disaster. it's also not how markets work.
few people know how to build fuel injectors. yet pretty much every car comes with excellent ones. because the market makes sure of it. it sees outcomes and bad car companies fail. even if you know little about how to buy a new car, all the choices ae so good that's it's hard to make a serious mistake. this is because competition breeds competence. monopoly and self serving unions breed the opposite.
it is exactly the sort of "parents are too dumb to be trusted to pick a school" thinking that stops good choices from being made available. it's patronizing, dismissive, and fails to take into account the manner in which market discipline functions. try applying that logic to, say, restaurants or buying a dishwasher and you'll see how it falls apart.
you're trying to make the perfect the enemy of the excellent. that is no way to build a school system.
1. How does preventing those who are stronger/smarter from learning and achievement protect those who are weaker? Can’t we have protections for those who need assistance to help push them upwards, rather than instituting policies that bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator?
2. Right now parents don’t have a choice at all, unless they are rich enough to afford private school. You seem to think it is better for *all* to fail and be indoctrinated into Critical Race Theory rather than take the chance that some parents will make better choices than others.
why don't you trust your fellow gato?
why do you think some cano will make a better choice for el gato?