←back to thread

346 points obscurette | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | 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 #
gamblor956 ◴[] No.42118068[source]
LAUSD has gifted programs. As do the dozen other districts in LA County. NY also still has gifted programs...

Yes, some of these were shut down. It wasn't because of "equity". It was because of something called "budget cuts."

replies(1): >>42121157 #
leereeves ◴[] No.42121157[source]
That's not the way it was sold by politicians or reported by the media. For example:

"NYC to eliminate gifted and talented school program that opponents say segregated students"

"this new, equitable model"

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/08/us/new-york-gifted-and-talent...

replies(1): >>42141408 #
1. gamblor956 ◴[] No.42141408[source]
If you had actually read the article you would have learned that NYC did not actually get rid of the gift and talented program. It just changed how the gifted students were identified and actually...expanded...the program. Quite dramatically.

And indeed, the CNN article is the only actual reporting claiming that NYC was eliminating this program.

You would think that something of this magnitude would have been reported in the hometown paper if it were true...But the NYT reports that NYC actually expanded the program by over 1100 seats...(https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/14/nyregion/nyc-gifted-talen...)

replies(1): >>42156566 #
2. leereeves ◴[] No.42156566[source]
If you had actually read the article you would have learned that the new program you're talking about is not a "gifted" program at all. It's a new curriculum for all students.

"instead implement an accelerated instructional model in Fall of 2022 that will serve all approximately 65,000 kindergartners"

"Officials plan to train all 4,000 kindergarten teachers in this accelerated learning instruction"