←back to thread

412 points tafda | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.751s | source
Show context
csa ◴[] No.42247695[source]
It’s not just California, but California may be one of the more egregious state neglecters.

The push at the state level for policies that focus on equality of outcomes over equality of opportunities will not end well for the gifted and talented communities.

Whenever I hear these people talk about their policies, I can’t help but recall Harrison Bergeron.

Focusing on equality of outcomes in a society that structurally does not afford equality of opportunities is a fool’s game that ends with Bergeron-esque levels of absurdity.

Imho, the only viable/main solution is to acknowledge that we all aren’t equal, we don’t all have access to the same opportunities, but as a country we can implement policies that lessen the imbalance.

Head Start is a good example.

Well-run gifted and talented programs in schools are also good examples.

Killing truly progressive programs for the purpose of virtue signaling is a loss for society.

replies(20): >>42247806 #>>42247816 #>>42247846 #>>42247879 #>>42247950 #>>42247987 #>>42248015 #>>42248175 #>>42248677 #>>42248849 #>>42249074 #>>42249151 #>>42249205 #>>42249364 #>>42250032 #>>42250676 #>>42250718 #>>42250987 #>>42252785 #>>42258523 #
soco ◴[] No.42247879[source]
If it was that simple I'm sure we would have seen it already. I imagine any gifted program, and you can imagine it in any way you like, will inevitably promote a majority from a certain group, thus by definition will be a target for every discrimination complaint - because basically it will be supporting and pumping more money to an already privileged group. So somebody has to decide: either targeted to constant fussing and worse, or no program at all and wait for the somewhat fewer gifted from the group with possibilities to still bubble up. Of course this can change every few years, and given a ideal situation when you had addressed the challenges of poverty, you can draft now a challenge-free gifted program. Note: From the start we assume that the gifted deserve more from public school, thus we call them "neglected" when they seem to be simply treated the same.
replies(3): >>42247921 #>>42248183 #>>42250215 #
1. vitehozonage ◴[] No.42248183[source]
> From the start we assume that the gifted deserve more from public school, thus we call them "neglected" when they seem to be simply treated the same.

If you have a group of animals where most of them are dogs but a few are cats, then use statistics to justify treating them all like dogs, that is not fair to the cats, is it?

replies(1): >>42248411 #
2. scarmig ◴[] No.42248411[source]
The issue is deeper than that: it's that we take some singular conception of what a dog is, and ruthlessly beat any deviation from that idealized dog out of all the individual dogs. Which ends up being every dog.
replies(1): >>42249306 #
3. vitehozonage ◴[] No.42249306[source]
Well said. The unusual dogs are just beaten more