Quote from above: "the wealthy can hire tutors or attend private schools and mitigate these throttlings, but this now produces exactly the inequality you sought to remove and shifts it to class vs ability. you’ve made a meritocracy into an aristocracy based on wealth and tried to call it equity." Brilliant stuff made simple. We need broad based understanding of this concept.
You must be spending time in the weight room of honest, thoughtful, reasoned, intellectual journalism. Each posting is stronger than the last, and you began an Olympic level weightlifter from the start. Keep lifting.
It’ll take time, even if “pay the child not the school” is fully implemented in a state, the state media will under report or lie about results, even if they are earth shattering. Look at COVID. Florida has shown us how to do it, and CA/NY/MI has shown then opposite, yet people still refuse to acknowledge and the media hides it. But the truth shall reign
You are absolutely right, and yet even conservatives these days seem to have abandoned the idea of school choice. How do we make that a political priority again?
Of course I agree in large part, Bad Cat. However, one tiny point of contention remains. I do not think public education, in the U.S. specifically, was ever NOT about indoctrination to a large degree. Pretty sure Horace Mann, and his band of pseudo eugenicists--although that might be a little of an over-the-top description--intended that public schooling would generate "good citizens." That means, in my view, people who were satisfied installing bumpers all day, in contrast to independent thinkers, questioning every edict sent down from on high. Certainly, removal of advanced courses is a horrible idea, for all the reasons you note, but school itself always seemed to serve a purpose somewhat unrelated to advanced learning. Am I mistaken in this premise?
it's a fair question and one that's hard to pin down in terms of an absolute answer. school was once about learning to read and write and multiply and not much else, at least in much of the US. it never really became the vehicle of indoctrination that folks like bismark wanted thought FDR gave it a good try in the 30's. we had a sort of heyday form the the late 40's to the 90's that, interestingly, seemed to start to lose ground when the soviet union fell. i suspect having them as a foe did the US a lot of good in terms of preventing marxist drift in institutions.
I hear you. As I look back at my words, I think I used, "always seemed..." when I could have used "drifted away from basic skills development..." FTR, Marxism sucks.
Cars made by the DMV had a precedent in East Germany, the "Trabant", an actual meme for the whole socialist concept and also to what the US public education is about to become.
Our town in RI trying to “de level” our schools that were top 1% in country. School comm and Super tried to pull a fast one and not tell the residents. People pissed as they see their huge taxes that they are willing to pay for superior schooling vaporized. Along w property values soon. Participation medal culture is destroying the nation.
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.
Quote from above: "the wealthy can hire tutors or attend private schools and mitigate these throttlings, but this now produces exactly the inequality you sought to remove and shifts it to class vs ability. you’ve made a meritocracy into an aristocracy based on wealth and tried to call it equity." Brilliant stuff made simple. We need broad based understanding of this concept.
You must be spending time in the weight room of honest, thoughtful, reasoned, intellectual journalism. Each posting is stronger than the last, and you began an Olympic level weightlifter from the start. Keep lifting.
It’ll take time, even if “pay the child not the school” is fully implemented in a state, the state media will under report or lie about results, even if they are earth shattering. Look at COVID. Florida has shown us how to do it, and CA/NY/MI has shown then opposite, yet people still refuse to acknowledge and the media hides it. But the truth shall reign
You are absolutely right, and yet even conservatives these days seem to have abandoned the idea of school choice. How do we make that a political priority again?
Of course I agree in large part, Bad Cat. However, one tiny point of contention remains. I do not think public education, in the U.S. specifically, was ever NOT about indoctrination to a large degree. Pretty sure Horace Mann, and his band of pseudo eugenicists--although that might be a little of an over-the-top description--intended that public schooling would generate "good citizens." That means, in my view, people who were satisfied installing bumpers all day, in contrast to independent thinkers, questioning every edict sent down from on high. Certainly, removal of advanced courses is a horrible idea, for all the reasons you note, but school itself always seemed to serve a purpose somewhat unrelated to advanced learning. Am I mistaken in this premise?
it's a fair question and one that's hard to pin down in terms of an absolute answer. school was once about learning to read and write and multiply and not much else, at least in much of the US. it never really became the vehicle of indoctrination that folks like bismark wanted thought FDR gave it a good try in the 30's. we had a sort of heyday form the the late 40's to the 90's that, interestingly, seemed to start to lose ground when the soviet union fell. i suspect having them as a foe did the US a lot of good in terms of preventing marxist drift in institutions.
I hear you. As I look back at my words, I think I used, "always seemed..." when I could have used "drifted away from basic skills development..." FTR, Marxism sucks.
Cars made by the DMV had a precedent in East Germany, the "Trabant", an actual meme for the whole socialist concept and also to what the US public education is about to become.
Our town in RI trying to “de level” our schools that were top 1% in country. School comm and Super tried to pull a fast one and not tell the residents. People pissed as they see their huge taxes that they are willing to pay for superior schooling vaporized. Along w property values soon. Participation medal culture is destroying the nation.
Respond with the underground mathroad!
This is so wrong. Makes me sad and angry.
Amazing argument there. Profound!
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?