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.
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.
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.