Red Mosquito

B wrote:Are they teaching all kids the same curriculum? Keeping kids in the same room is not the same as keeping kids on the same curriculum.

Also, are we sure it’s good to “draft” the kids you think are good at math (or whatever) and then forget the rest? And by that I mean forget their mathematic (or whatever) potential? How many people know what they’re good at when they’re 15?

I realize some have a natural aptitude for math, and maybe that should be developed young (?), but in general I think we cultivate people too young. You have a way better understanding of yourself at 25 than at 18.

This feels a lot like a lead up to reducing college admissions to not require Algebra 2/ Trig/ Geometry, or whatever the current floor is.. We must keep sending bodies to college whether or not the students will benefit. All those administrators have mortgages, after all

Rob wrote:

B wrote:Are they teaching all kids the same curriculum? Keeping kids in the same room is not the same as keeping kids on the same curriculum.

Also, are we sure it’s good to “draft” the kids you think are good at math (or whatever) and then forget the rest? And by that I mean forget their mathematic (or whatever) potential? How many people know what they’re good at when they’re 15?

Putting aside the viability of B's a teacher teaching separate curriculum in a room full of junior high kids thing, you may be misreading the intent. Or maybe I am. Either way what they are describing as the goal is eliminating inequities, in the modern progressive definition of that word, not identifying opportunities for each to student to succeed. Surprising as it may be, I agree with many progressive educators that there is no 'right way' to teach math and that culture heavily influences how people learn. I don't see those ideas as controversial. Where this particular policy strikes me as evil is that it takes those ideas as uses them in the context of CRT (i.e. these are the 'white' ways and thus inseparably burdened by Western sins) as an excuse to slow down the high achievers instead of elevate those students who struggle with the more tradition methods, so you end with statistically higher equity amongst intersectional groups at the expense of human potential. It's certainly cheaper and easier to hold kids back than it is to customize educational plans to individuals, but which helps marginalized communities more? Equitable achievement at a lower bar or inequitable achievement and maximizing a person's ability to succeed? If this were athletics the question wouldn't even be asked, but math which is far more important to any individual's future success? Well...

simple schoolboy wrote: This feels a lot like a lead up to reducing college admissions to not require Algebra 2/ Trig/ Geometry, or whatever the current floor is.. We must keep sending bodies to college whether or not the students will benefit. All those administrators have mortgages, after all

I think it goes back to intersectional theory and modern progressive bullshit, which says 'intent does not negate impact'. The ends matter, not the means, so if those ends show a disparate impact that must be remedied regardless of how. The ends in your example being a credential, the degree, so it doesn't matter if the intent of schooling is to enlighten and educate and the student is wholly unprepared as long as they get admitted to a four year school at a representative rate, the process was 'just'.

Bi_3 wrote:

Seriously, this is never going to happen. The school board will be murdered by the parents in the district before they ever implement this plan.

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Seriously, this is never going to happen. The school board will be murdered by the parents in the district before they ever implement this plan.

Its a state level initiative. Why any particular school board level revolt would matter is unclear to me.

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Seriously, this is never going to happen. The school board will be murdered by the parents in the district before they ever implement this plan.

It is happening now, California public schools would be the single largest application of the plan: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/gi ... ation-race


The core question of this, and this thread in some sense, is: "Is equity the proper goal?" Or maybe, if you are from the Jordan Peterson / Burt schools of thought; "Is equity the ends or the means?"

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Seriously, this is never going to happen. The school board will be murdered by the parents in the district before they ever implement this plan.

It is happening now, California public schools would be the single largest application of the plan: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/gi ... ation-race

The core question of this, and this thread in some sense, is: "Is equity the proper goal?" Or maybe, if you are from the Jordan Peterson / Burt schools of thought; "Is equity the ends or the means?"

All people will never be equal, but when inequality based on race, gender, or money is caused by human intervention, it needs fixed. Equity in this case is one way to address that on the path toward fixing the problem. I don't know if it's the right way, but it's one way.

I find these images to ring true.






https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/reso ... -equality/

If you're argument is that we should leave it how it is and just allow the kids with the most obnoxious parents who have time to hassle the school staff to succeed over their peers, then I'm not sure we can be friends.

Here's an idea: just don't have kids

verb_to_trust wrote:Here's an idea: just don't have kids

Now you tell me

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Seriously, this is never going to happen. The school board will be murdered by the parents in the district before they ever implement this plan.

It is happening now, California public schools would be the single largest application of the plan: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/gi ... ation-race

The core question of this, and this thread in some sense, is: "Is equity the proper goal?" Or maybe, if you are from the Jordan Peterson / Burt schools of thought; "Is equity the ends or the means?"

All people will never be equal, but when inequality based on race, gender, or money is caused by human intervention, it needs fixed. Equity in this case is one way to address that on the path toward fixing the problem. I don't know if it's the right way, but it's one way.

I find these images to ring true.






https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/reso ... -equality/

If you're argument is that we should leave it how it is and just allow the kids with the most obnoxious parents who have time to hassle the school staff to succeed over their peers, then I'm not sure we can be friends.

I dont think those pictures represent is what is being suggested, so I made this:




Eliminating the option of getting fruit from the bad tree ensures equity.

Bi_3 wrote:Eliminating the option of getting fruit from the bad tree ensures equity.

I think verb might be right.

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Eliminating the option of getting fruit from the bad tree ensures equity.

I think verb might be right.

Whatever, that picture is awesome. ITS THE TREE OF FORBIDDEN KNOWLEDGE, B.

apples and oranges

I've finished the series of more realistic pictures:

.

.

Giving the kid with the blue shirt the taller ladder seemed like a better option than bending the tree.

BurtReynolds wrote:

I'm not sure what this image is supposed to mean. Justice? It looks like they are saying that nature itself is unfair (it is), and that we all have to try to manhandle it into something that treats everyone the same. That doesn't usually go well.

While the tree appears to be a naturally occurring system, it’s critical to remember that social systems aren’t naturally inequitable — they’ve been intentionally designed to reward specific demographics for so long that the system’s outcomes may appear unintentional but are actually rooted discriminatory practices and beliefs.

https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/reso ... -equality/

B wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

I'm not sure what this image is supposed to mean. Justice? It looks like they are saying that nature itself is unfair (it is), and that we all have to try to manhandle it into something that treats everyone the same. That doesn't usually go well.

While the tree appears to be a naturally occurring system, it’s critical to remember that social systems aren’t naturally inequitable — they’ve been intentionally designed to reward specific demographics for so long that the system’s outcomes may appear unintentional but are actually rooted discriminatory practices and beliefs.

https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/reso ... -equality/

You should have posted this when you posted the pics. It wasn't immediately apparent (to me) that the tree was a metaphor for society. I wasn't trying to read that much into it.