←back to thread

346 points obscurette | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.369s | 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 #
Afton ◴[] No.42116885[source]
To be fair, it is less about "keeping top kids down" and more about "let's use our very scarce resources helping the bottom kids". Put that way it seems less malicious, and more like probably the right thing to do over all, while still being extremely frustrating if you are, or are the parent of, a 'top kid'. I know that in Seattle, I've been very frustrated with all the talk and promise of our school to provide enrichment to kids like mine who are able to learn quickly and are ready for more advanced learning opportunities, only to discover that it is haphazard, often in name only, and there isn't time or interest in providing more.

But it's not because of some drive for 'equity'. I've talked with teachers (as friends, not in a school setting). They're doing what they can with the resources they have.

replies(11): >>42116954 #>>42116990 #>>42117056 #>>42117119 #>>42117180 #>>42117193 #>>42117216 #>>42117370 #>>42117510 #>>42117669 #>>42119087 #
chongli ◴[] No.42117180[source]
and more like probably the right thing to do over all

It’s only the right thing if you assume equity as a starting position though. We already know, rather robustly, that the weakest and most disruptive students can consume far more than their share of limited resources and produce correspondingly limited outcomes.

Another theory goes that we should provide more resources to the best and brightest students so that they go on to become great leaders and experts in their fields and then improve society for everyone. This may be called the “rising tide lifts all boats” theory. It was the predominant one in the US for much of the 20th century and earlier, and it arguably led to the US’s position as a global leader in science, technology, and industry.

replies(2): >>42118997 #>>42120023 #
1. jltsiren ◴[] No.42120023[source]
That approach eventually failed, because the great leaders and experts went on to improve the society for themselves, at the expense of everyone else. Focusing on those who would be successful anyway made sense when the middle class was still expanding. Then the expansion stopped, social mobility decreased, and the zero-sum aspects of the society became dominant.