←back to thread

346 points obscurette | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
donatj ◴[] No.42116365[source]
I work in EdTech, I have for a very long time now, and the problem I have seen is no one in education is willing to ACTUALLY let kids learn at their own level.

The promise of EdTech was that kids could learn where they are. A kid who's behind can actually continue to learn rather than being left behind. A kid who's ahead can be nurtured.

We had this. It worked well, in my opinion at least, and the number of complaints and straight up threats because kids would learn things "they shouldn't be" was just… insanely frustrating.

Now in order to keep schools paying for our services, every kid is banded into a range based on their grade. They are scored/graded based on their grade level rather than their growth. It's such a crying shame.

replies(44): >>42116420 #>>42116428 #>>42116542 #>>42116573 #>>42116592 #>>42116597 #>>42116628 #>>42116631 #>>42116698 #>>42116704 #>>42116721 #>>42116856 #>>42116913 #>>42116918 #>>42116919 #>>42116925 #>>42116957 #>>42116988 #>>42117074 #>>42117131 #>>42117141 #>>42117190 #>>42117215 #>>42117242 #>>42117269 #>>42117313 #>>42117321 #>>42117478 #>>42117496 #>>42117855 #>>42118044 #>>42118114 #>>42118248 #>>42118527 #>>42118780 #>>42118804 #>>42119422 #>>42119555 #>>42119748 #>>42120204 #>>42120395 #>>42122043 #>>42128759 #>>42128827 #
michaelrpeskin ◴[] No.42116631[source]
That's "equity" for you. We can't be unfair and give someone something that makes them better. It's easier to keep the top kids down than it is to lift the bottom kids up.
replies(6): >>42116842 #>>42116885 #>>42116910 #>>42116923 #>>42117169 #>>42117176 #
sixo ◴[] No.42116923[source]
Equity really isn't the ideology doing this, except in a few cases, it's something else. I'd speculate the dominant effect is that people tend to dislike and resist what they have a hard time imagining: there's a strong bias towards easily-administrated uniformity, and ppl tend to enforce what they know and what they were brought up in themselves
replies(2): >>42116987 #>>42117199 #
dpkirchner ◴[] No.42116987[source]
Agreed, and that strong bias is likely driven by cost, not the equity boogeyman that causes many a jerked knee.
replies(3): >>42117161 #>>42117217 #>>42117238 #
leereeves ◴[] No.42117217[source]
Can you name any examples of gifted programs being shut down, citing any reason other than equity?

The examples I've seen, in New York, Seattle, and LA, all cited equity as the reason.

Edit: I'm responding here to the comment "It's easier to keep the top kids down than it is to lift the bottom kids up."

replies(2): >>42117355 #>>42118068 #
1. sixo ◴[] No.42117355{3}[source]
OP said:

> It worked well, in my opinion at least, and the number of complaints and straight up threats because kids would learn things "they shouldn't be" was just… insanely frustrating. .... Now in order to keep schools paying for our services, every kid is banded into a range based on their grade

This sentiment that "they shouldn't be" learning advanced things is not an equity argument—it's probably the kids' OWN parents complaining! I certainly agree that the equity-based shutdowns in highly-progressive cities are a problem, but that's really a very limited case; this thread is really about an entirely different phenomenon.