So what you were really trying to say was “I consider your argument bad. To clarify the meaning of this mysterious term ‘bad argument’, here’s another arbitrarily chosen example of a bad argument from some blog.”
OK, thanks for the help.
Well, it clearly harmed you because you do fall for very dumb or incomplete arguments. 
Not helping you, you numb nuts, I’m helping others dismiss your sorry arguments that can be shown to be already being copy-pasted in other places in the right wing “info” sphere.
LOL, that’s actually quite good. 
My kids are at an independent school that follows modern European pedagogy models as much as our national education department will allow (which is not near far enough), so that kind of elitist crap doesn’t feature, thank the stars.
I’m not advocating for “mediocre” anything.
Yes, your bubbling resentment comes through quite clearly in your posts…
I value someone’s experience only when they don’t choose to lie about what I have said or advocate. And where their experience isn’t easily contrasted with my own experience (which is the same as yours in regards to no special classes), and the other things I’ve experienced, like actually visiting a very non-mediocre Finnish school.
That’s clearly a lie.
…with infinite resources (or even just sufficient resources), this makes some sense. But that’s fairyland. Here in the real word, you advocate for taking limited resources and dividing them unequally. You are not for equality, and to continue to pretend otherwise is some transparent bullshit.
I’m not sure how the Canadian school system is, but if this was in America it would backfire. The teachers are overworked and overwhelmed trying to teach everything required. They are pretty much teaching to the test. There’s no time to help kids who don’t understand. The teachers will set the class pace to the kids who get A++ without studying while the kids who struggle will lag farther behind. I have a feeling that having everyone in a single class will mean the kids who struggle will get worse grades since the kids with the higher grades will get the focus.
One thing the school should do is stop naming classes with performance based labels like “Honors Math” vs. “Remedial Math”. No one is going to gain confidence about themselves when taking a class with “remedial” in the name.
But helping struggling kids is something schools need to focus on a lot more anyway. They go all out praising the A+ kids, but kids who struggle are made to feel like losers. If it wasn’t for the per-student funding the school gets, I have a feeling most school administrators would prefer struggling kids drop out since they are more work to deal with. I’m pretty sure most students who struggled have stories about a teacher who said they wouldn’t amount to anything because they didn’t get good grades in the class. And even if a teacher wants to help struggling kids, they often aren’t able to because they don’t have any spare time to give the students the help they need.
I think it’s much more likely that the class will be pitched to the median student, since it’s the same class that would have been taken exclusively by median students in the past. Either way, I think we all understand that “magically, some students in an algebra 2 class will be taught an entire trigonometry course without increasing teacher workload” is a ridiculous fantasy that nobody actually believes is going to happen.
It depends on how the schools and teachers are assessed. Eg if there is a test and they are assessed based on how many students pass, they will focus on those who are marginal between passing and failing (this is what happens in the UK, and results in lessons being pitched to the somewhat-below-median students). If instead they are assessed based on how many students get into top universities, they will focus on the A+ students.
This was the case at my school. They were already dividing their attention between the average and above-average students, and had little time to spare for those who were really behind.
This moved fast… trying to catch up.
Perhaps. It is certainly different, and perhaps harder, for the teachers. I am honestly divided on the issue, particularly since I am the parent of two “gifted” kids. I don’t want to see them harmed by changes to the system, but I also understand that their are inequities in the current system. I will be very interested as results start to come in from districts that are making these changes. The research, from what I’ve seen, is mixed.
I just don’t buy the “Harrison Bergeron” crap. No school district is willingly trying to hobble their smart kids. That would be suicidal. But they are likely willing to see a slight reduction in “super-learners” that consume the curriculum at an accelerated pace if it means that a handful of “slow learners” are able to catch up. Particularly when there is no real gain for the student to be “done with math” their Junior year in college.
I’ve honestly seen both. For math, to take one example, I’d say my 4 “honors/AP” teachers ranged from amazing to complete crap to downright misogynist/harassing towards female students.
I’m trying to be precise, but I’m talking about the difference between cognitive tests (WISC, for example) and subject-matter tests, which often are only measuring familiarity, not actual aptitude. You can somewhat improve your kids WISC score through testing and practice, but not very much.
Perhaps. I am also on Earth and my experience does not match yours. All of my AP/honors courses were taught by the longest-serving teachers. Many had doctoral degrees. They were of varying quality as educators, of course, but they were all more than qualified to teach their subject areas.
Typically what happens around here is the school makes recommendations based on grades from the previous year. You can only “move up” if the student or parent requests it and then convinces the administration. It requires engaged students and parents. I have no idea what the racial makeup of Vancouver schools is.
As I understand it the point is not that an Algebra 2 teacher would teach Trig. It would be that either the Algebra 2 student would accelerate out and into the Trig class a year/semester early using outside learning/tutoring or, more likely, they would be taught more advanced/deep concepts in Algebra. I am reasonable confident a competent teacher, well trained, using existing math learning tools, can make sure that a wide range of students can learn Algebra 2 to their relative abilities.
I would love to see some systematic study of this. But in my experience - we have a magnet school in the area in which I live that has trouble retaining teachers. They pay less than the surrounding districts, they had a reputation for safety and facilities issues in the past (though this is now less of a concern), and some people find out that they really don’t like it when their students and students’ parents actually hold them accountable for measurable outcomes. They used to cycle through an endless revolving door of 20-something teachers fresh out of school who put in two or three years there and then departed for something more stable. As these sorts of programs come under increasing assault from educrat dogma, I would expect to see more of this effect.
Within a given school, I’ve also seen incompetent but unfirable teachers shunted to the AP classes because the AP kids are motivated enough to self-learn and, as long as the teacher isn’t also an autocrat, will just check out at their desk and let the students work with printed and online resources to prepare for the test. This approach isn’t going to work with C-average students, let alone those in a remedial environment, they need someone keeping them motivated and on track. It’s also extremely unlikely to work for math classes at any level.
This is also a critical observation. You have to measure and reward what you want to achieve.
I believe our schools attempt to measure progress. Students are assessed using subject-matter tests at the beginning and end of school years. Teachers and schools are scored based on how the students progress through the curriculum using the starting test as a baseline (as well as previous-year results, I believe).
But fundamentally what is the point of the school? Define that, measure it, and then you can move forward. I am not convinced that “number of students that go to Ivy League schools” is a particularly useful metric for a public school. Or even percent that go to college, necessarily, although obviously that is what parents focus on.
But one thing that is clear to me is that once you have defined your metric, if your system is producing obviously racially- or SES-biased results you need to be willing to reconsider your system and try to understand the causes. Just throwing up your hands and saying “low-SES students are going to fail” isn’t good enough.
You are right, of course, about the difficulty in attracting, training, and retaining good teachers. There are tons of reasons for this: changing workloads, over-demanding parents, stifling bureaucracy, low pay, violence and safety concerns, union requirements, etc…
I suppose to the extent changing or eliminating tracking and honors courses adds to teacher workload that is relevant to this discussion, but I’m sort of taking it as given that the teachers will be trained and supported in implementing whatever the districts design. YMMV as to whether that is a valid assumption.
WTF? According to the article linked here, there are still advanced placement classes.
It probably has the best teachers, too. How privileged of you.
That school should be shut down and your kids moved back into an average public school and placed in an average class. That’s the only thing that would be fair to everyone.
And what if the disparate results of the mimority group is being caused by a different system - say, one that encourages single parent families, that champions value systems that decry such ‘white’ thinking as studying hard and being on time, or that they come from violent neighborhoods without good role models and their peers disdain education?
We could try to fix those problems, or we could note that they aren’t doing so well in school and decide the answer is to hold back everyone else until they are all equally unsuccessful. For equity.
There’s a general problem with this:
Whatever you choose as the measurement, it then tends to distort outcomes as teachers adapt their teaching to it. You get teaching to the test and the neglect of any area not measured.
We might be able to get rid of racially biased results, but equal results between different SES groups is pretty much a pipe dream. People who do well in education are on average richer, and children resemble their parents, both due to genes and upbringing, so it’s almost inevitable that children of high SES parents will do better in education on average, even before extra tutoring, going to better schools, or whatever other help their parents can get them. Doesn’t mean we should throw up our hands; the aim is still to give all kids a decent chance at success - but perfect equity is probably not achievable.
That’s probably worth a thread of it’s own!
Yes, we could forcibly take those children away from their parents and raise them the white right way!
Barely 1% of the population of Vancouver is Black Canadians. If we assume there’s a disproportionate number of them in the group of “people of school age who can’t afford private school” then we’re talking about maybe 1.5% of the school system. There are similarly small amounts of people whose primary identity would be considered “Hispanic” or indigenous in the North American racial conception.
Bottom line - 95% of Vancouver is white or Asian and we’re still having the exact same discussions over how we need to fuck up education in the name of racial equity as we are in places where there are enough black students to actually observe any alleged disparities. Does this more likely suggest that:
*Vancouver has a problem with racism, or
*The entire racial discourse about the premises and goals of the anti-excellence movement in education is transparent, cynical nonsense from top to bottom?
I should’ve known! You’re exactly the same sort of hypocrite as UK politicians, who advocate for oh-so-egalitarian comprehensive schools, and then send their own kids to private school.
Holy non-sequitur, Batman!