https://x.com/nielshoven/status/1975268543882272951?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"Since roughly the 1990’s, the main goal of education policy has been to “close the achievement gap”. When high achieving students excel, they grow the achievement gap, and so education policymakers look for ways to hold them back."
Because eliminating gifted programs closes the gap, but at what cost to the best students?
https://x.com/VivekGRamaswamy/status/1974939496912429406
https://x.com/gen0m1cs/status/1975009938112930002
"There are improvements in the system we can definitely make, but the US education system is the best in the world at nurturing talent once you account for racial demographics. The US's lag in student proficiency compared to some other countries is likely due to racial demographics."
https://x.com/avidseries/status/1975261127602061699?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"K-12 education in America is world-leading: Asians and whites in the US outperform all other nations of their ancestry on PISA. The low overall proficiency percentages are mostly a function of poor performance by blacks and Hispanics. But no politician will directly say this."
Education policy is a difficult topic to discuss, and there are probably many right ways to approach education. However if we can't look at the data dispassionately and without bias to accurately determine where the problems exist then how will we ever determine the best solution for students. Part of the problem is that teacher's unions exist for teachers, not for students, and they have a disproportionate amount of political influence based on their massive donations to (one) political party. The problem with putting so much of education policy in the hands of the federal government is that it engenders top down/one size fits all solutions. Yet as we see in MS, maybe states have a better handle on what is best for their students. I fail to see how hiding from what the data tells us because we don't want to offend benefits anyone.
24 comments:
Oh no! The poor, privileged white childrens being held back all so THEY (those nefarious plotters of ill will and communism, no doubt!!) can implement a plan of failure for our society!!
WOE is us!!
Do y'all ever LISTEN to yourselves?
Conspiracy theorists are the ones dragging us down in education and wisdom and basic common sense.
Craig...
"However if we can't look at the data dispassionately and without bias to accurately determine where the problems exist ..."
He says, missing the irony entirely!
Irony. It's a concept I learned in our public school system.
Look it up.
Craig...
The low overall proficiency percentages are mostly a function of poor performance by blacks and Hispanics.
But no politician will directly say this."
Hell, the overtly racist ones (and many not so overtly racist) will DELIGHT in saying stuff like that. Where did you grow up that you don't know that? Racists have been peddling that crap for centuries now. Those of us who received a quality public education know that much (and OUR education was often whitewashed... but still, THAT much got through!)
Craig...
Part of the problem is that teacher's unions exist for teachers, not for students
Another conspiracy theory/Q-anon type claim. That's true ONLY if you make the presumption (unproven) that public school teachers go in to the field to get rich and NOT because they care about their students and giving a quality education.
As someone who was IN the teachers' union and with many friends and much collective experience in the field, we know that teacher unions are imperfect, but of course, they're dedicated to standing up alongside the teachers who are dedicated to giving our children a quality education, in spite of substandard pay, generally speaking.
Since you're making this claim, AND as someone who values information-driven education, I'd LOVE for you to try to make this case and, failing that, for you admit that this was a claim you can't prove.
Craig...
they have a disproportionate amount of political influence based on their massive donations to (one) political party.
That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that those professionals who decide to go into public education recognize the reality that the Democrats are the ones most willing to invest in and give support to public educations. That being the reality (and even YOU can probably admit that's the reality of it all), why wouldn't they throw more support towards those who will, in turn, support them and their students and the word of public education?
It's a reasonable question.
You know, the GOP and conservatives could, AT ANY POINT, demonstrate that they are supporters and advocates of public education and the students and teachers in that system and provide the sort of support that students and teachers value. That conservatives DON'T do that (and indeed, spend a HUGE amount of time and dollars and energy in devaluing and attacking the public education system and its teachers), isn't that on THEM that teachers don't generally see them as an ally?
Be reasonable. That, too, is something I learned in a public school system.
Craig:
The problem with putting so much of education policy in the hands of the federal government is that it engenders top down/one size fits all solutions.
I'm guessing that surely you know that education systems are typically and predominantly run at the local level. You know that, right?
Of course, in some conservative states like my own, the STATE level conservatives like to try to dictate to the local school districts in cities like mine what we must do. And, of course, we are currently seeing an unprecedented bit of power grab at the federal level with the president deciding HE should be the school board president for ALL the schools and who is busy trying to take over all local control... dictating what history must be taught, what should be taught about basic values like diversity, equity and inclusion, what should happen in gym classes and bathrooms and in students' homes!
Look, I'd love for you to at least show that you're consistent and not being hypocritical: By all means, DAMN your felon and his federal overreach into public schools and higher education.
Will you?
I think we know the answer to that.
If nothing else, modern "conservatives" have demonstrated clearly that they are not and never have been about local control. You all are demonstrating you're about local control when conservatives like you are in charge," but otherwise, you're fine with federal mandates.
Show me I'm mistaken about you.
Some of the research about the topic, for experts, scholars and those who care about public education for all our school children, including the most advantaged ones...
https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-gifted-programs-provide-little-to-no-academic-boost-new-study-says/
The reality is...
* of course, students are on a spectrum when it comes to performing well in an academic setting.
* and we owe it to all students to give the best options for all students.
* however, it is an assumption (and an unproven one, I believe) that "gifted" programs provide significant boosts for advantaged students OR that any advantages they MIGHT receive might be offset by some negatives or other less beneficial factors.
* For instance, one way that data shows students (all students) can best grow academically is when they teach other students. Demonstrating mastery of a concept and the ability to pass on that mastery IS an educational experience. That can happen in a "mainstream" classroom in a way that it can't happen (at least as naturally) as in a "special" classroom.
Just for one example.
* and as a special education teacher and someone trained in that field, the same is true on the other side. Yes, there are challenges to extreme integration of all students, but there are advantages as well... educational advantages. Whereas, almost ALL the so-called "advantages" that happen when we removed "problem students" from a class room are experienced by the mainstream classroom, BUT it comes at a cost to the students pulled out of mainstream classrooms.
* there are limited instances where both arrangements (pulling out so-called "gifted" students and so-called "special ed" students) might provide limited benefits, but generally speaking, all of us learning together provides the most educational advantages... according to studies and the lived experiences of many if not most teachers.
(NOTE: And hear me: I'm not pollyanna-ish about the obstacles to mainstreaming all students... again, I've been there. I'm just noting that the problems of pulling out on both ends are outweighed by the benefits.
ANOTHER NOTE: I'm not saying, at all, that there are not some benefits - especially for some white students - in "gifted" classes/separation. I'm just noting that there are some deficits for them and for the rest of the world and that it should be looked at in toto, not on a shallow level.
ANOTHER NOTE: If we decided to remove ALL lower-academic performing students from schools and ONLY nurtured the most privileged to benefit from standard academic settings, those students WOULD excel in some ways... but they'd be missing out in other ways, and our nation, as a whole, would suffer as well. One of the problems/myths of the "advantages" of private schools is failing to take into account that private schools, by and large, can pick and choose their students and if a student isn't keeping up or causing a problem in some way, they can and often are kicked out. Public schools don't do this and that's to their great praise.
It's two entirely separate topics to talk about educating only the most privileged academic students and educating ALL students.
I DO fully support looking at data-driven best practices when it comes to education and in that world, left and right should be able to find some common ground:
1. Early reading to your children/having a book-friendly home is critical to long term educational success;
2. Parental involvement is critical for long term educational success;
2a. Therefore, having households that are living on the margins - unhoused families, job-insecure families, overworked families, unsupported single parent families, households dealing with health difficulties, addictions and abuse... the impact of these sorts of things being minimalized are ALL critical for student success in their education process. Things we can do to minimize these barriers WILL serve to improve the chances for student success AND, generally speaking, that means investments of resources in one way or another; We can't fail to invest in housing, addictions, poverty and at the same time, blame students (or teachers) for less-than-optimal outcomes educationally.
3. Having qualified and motivated teachers (which again, usually comes with financial investments in terms of both the educators and their support systems) is critical for student academic success.
4. Having cultures that clearly value and promote and support education and teachers helps improve educational outcomes.
Like that. There are many known and obvious supports that we can be putting in place and we can disagree about how BEST to do that (how best to support unhoused families with school age children? WHO will provide that support? WHERE will the funding for that support come from, etc), but the goals are often quite clear and obvious.
Perhaps we can find some common ground there?
I believe it's nothing more than pure cowardice on the part of the leftists who control education.
So Dan decides to show back up and leads with this blatant lie.
Fascinating, that Dan learned about education data from the 21st century way back in the '70s and '80's.
Yeah, it is a crazy concept. It's not rocket science to see where problems exist in the schools.
Because the data...
I'd missed Dan, until he jumped back in with all this craziness.
No, teacher's unions are for the benefit of teachers (and administrators), it's literally in the freaking name.
So the teachers unions generously shovel hundreds of millions of dollars exclusively to the DFL out of the goodness of their hearts. The problem is that you conflate throwing endless millions/billions of dollars at teachers unions while we have entire districts where HS students can't read at grade level.
You answered your own question. The unions "contribute" millions, and they get billions back from the DFL. It's a pretty sweet ROI. Or call it bribery.
Public sector unions who donate to the very people they "negotiate" with is the height of conflict of interest.
You know, that the GOP and conservatives have expressed "support" for better educated students. I guess pointing out the data, that entire school districts are full of students who can't read at grade level or do basic math, is "attacking" now. Maybe less time teaching kids about gay sex, and more time about things that'll actually benefit them in real life.
If y'all are so enamored with local control of education, why are y'all so scared shitless about eliminating the DOEd and block granting funds to the states to do with as they will? As we see in MS, going against the grain actually produces students who perform better.
I'm not indulging your fantasies.
I'm confused, y'all are sacred shitless about Trump getting rid of the DOEd, yet simultaneously scared shitless that he wants complete control of local schools, pick one and stick with it.
Obviously, if schools violate federal law the feds should deal with those violations.
It's a given that you're mistaken about me. Beyond that I've been consistent for years advocating the elimination of the DOEd and getting the feds out of local schools. I've also been clear that I can see some degree of broad federal expectations for student performance and curriculum, but with broad leeway for the states to reach those goals.
1. Interesting point. Then perhaps you should be advocating for intact, two parent families.
2. When your first 3 points are merely repeating yourself, you look like an idiot. The problem is the we know to a high degree of certainty how to deal with those problems. It's been well documented for years that 3-5 behaviors will significantly reduce the chances of living in poverty. But hey, at least your consistent in your throw more taxpayer money at the problems.
3. I guess that depends on what you mean by "qualified". Because teachers unions regularly oppose older, second career adults, with actual experience in the subject areas they teach from actually teaching. I'd rather have someone with real world experience teaching, than someone who has a 4 year degree in how to teach, but little experience in the subject matter.
4. Again, not the flex you seem to think it is. However, I 100% agree that culture is a huge factor. It's why some low wage, immigrant cultures have students who excel, even in lower performing schools. The problem is that you can't spend billions after billions of OPM to fix cultures. That the only solution that occurs to you is "funding" tells me all I need to know.
Perhaps, a bit. Until you kept pretending that more and more "funding" is some sort of magical fix.
The common ground we should be able to find is that we have a lot of school children who are being criminally undeserved by their communities, their parents, and their schools. The common ground is that we should focus like a laser beam on giving HS graduates the skills they need to function in society instead of bullshit.
But, nahhhhhhhh. You're too addicted to drag queens in schools, gay sex crap. If schools want to have voluntary extra curricular activities, how about spending time reading or working on math, instead how how to hide being "trans" from their parents.
I could have been more precise. On the one hand, you have the unions, who are greedy bastards. On the other, are the Dems who kowtow for the votes and donations. But neither of them have the courage to address the real sources of the problems. They know it isn't a lack of funding. Only stupid people, like Dan, buy into that crap.
My oldest has been teaching for 20 years, all of it spent in a high school in a...shall we say...less than affluent area. She's not at all a fan of the union. She not a fan of a lot of the parents...if not most of them. She takes no crap and the kids perform as a result because she lays on the expectations. I should say that not all perform, and she's often forced to pass kids due to pressures from above. In the meantime, were she the sole authority, she'd fail everyone not performing to the level which would earn passing grades. So she's doing her part, and mostly on her own. BTW, she has kids from each year who send her notes of gratitude after they've moved on.
I know others who teach and none have the attitude about the unions Danny-girl does. They save their concern for their students.
As to funding, the southern states of Missisippi, Alabama and Louisiana, who have risen to the heights after years of being the laughingstocks have done so without additional funding, but with proper educational methods and curricula.
Finally, I would once again remind how useless it is to accept any link Danny-girl provides, because he doesn't read them himself. If he did, he'd come across this:
A 2016 study of a school district in Florida found no benefit for white students but large benefits for Black and Hispanic students who were assigned to separate gifted classrooms. This national study found the opposite, that white students reaped benefits from gifted programs that children of color did not. The Florida study wasn’t wrong but this national study shows that different schools administer gifted services differently and can get different results.
From this point in the article, it goes on to validate this last sentence, which affirms it isn't the concept of gifted programs, but how they operate which determines the benefits to those students in them.
I also couldn't find a link to the actual study Dan thinks argues against gifted programs in order to see info about their methodology, without which the link is worthless and just a conclusion without any means of determining how they got there.
I get the sense that there's some stupid progressive (sorry for the redundancy) notion that providing for the "gifted" students comes at the expense of the "less than gifted". Clearly in the public education system there is way more than enough funding to accommodate both ends of that spectrum and all in between.
The problem is NEVER funding.
"The rush to the lowest common denominator continues. By all means. let's do everything possible to keep POC children from gifted and talented programs. "
Craig, from BoT on October 4
The problem we have is, as noted in the data, that Hispanic and black students in (mostly urban districts) skew the numbers when measuring student achievement. When you remove the G&T programs from those schools, you take the risk of dragging the best and brightest down, rather than pulling the rest up. It's easier to "close the achievement gap" (or wealth gap) by taking opportunity from the best students, than to help the rest of the students.
For the parents that care, or who can, they'll deal with this by taking their G&T students out of shitty districts and enrolling them in private schools or moving/open enrolling into better schools. Which ultimately hurts the urban districts, while closing the achievement gap.
In MPLS, the public schools pretty much suck(despite some of the highest per student spending in the state). So, for the parents who care, they open enroll into the suburban districts that abut MPLS or they enroll at Minnehaha Academy, Christo Rey, or one of the RC schools.
I disagree. I think it's more about greed on the part of the teachers unions and the DFL. Every dime they spend on political contributions could be used to educate children.
As I noted, the unions are in it for themselves and the teachers. The overhead alone for the unions with the bloated salaries and crap must be huge, then you add the millions upon millions of political donations, and you realize that it's not about students much at all.
I, as do we all, know individual teachers who genuinely are in it for their students and want the best for them. That's not in question. It's the fact that they're forced into the union and that their dues are used for things not related to the students. I wonder what % of teachers would ditch the union if they had the opportunity. The other thing the union has been doing is fighting against people who are experts in various subjects, yet don't have a teaching degree, being able to teach. I could be wrong, but I'd rather see an accountant with 20 years of experience teaching accounting, than a 22 year old teacher who's never actually been an accountant.
As to your FL piece, that lines up with what I said on the 4th. I suspect that the line is suburban/urban as much as white/black. My point remains, that (as Dan correctly pointed out) G&T programs provide a way to counteract the culture that a lot of black kids grow up surrounded by, and gives them tools and encouragement that they would not get in a normal classroom. One doesn't have to be a genius, let alone an educator, to understand that the bottom 5-10% of students have a negative effect on the top 5-10% of students in their classes. School are driven by the lowest common denominator, which is why they need the ability to provide additional support to the best students.
I agree that the problem is never gross funding. It's what the funding is spent on. Virtually everyone agrees that there needs to be a class in "Life Skills" in HS. Stuff like how to change a tire, file taxes, license a car, balance your "checkbook", basic cooking, etc. I know that most of that used to be taught by parents, but it's not. Instead we're throwing money down some ABC rabbit hole, and on critical race theory crap (especially now that Kendi has been shown to be a fraud). Schools should prepare students for life after graduation, in practical ways.
The public education system doesn't want high-achievers. They want them to be indoctrinated into all things LEFT.
Again, every, single, sane American should get --AND READ--Pete Hegseth's book, "Battle for the American Mind" as exposes the who underlying programs to indoctrinate students instead of educating them and have been doing so for decades.
I would tend to agree that the public education system does not encourage or want truly high achievers. Although I think that it's less about that than about independent/out of the box thinkers.
Glenn, I think that explains the resistance to people with expertise, but no teaching degree, teaching. People like that can inspire students to forge a different path.
https://x.com/derrickevans4wv/status/1975896223711142005?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
The position espoused by the school board member in this video does illustrate a significant problem if education. It also pokes holes in Dan's family/culture explanations. If the education establishment is serious about this attitude, then it becomes impossible to place any responsibility on the parents because the schools have usurped that role.
Talk about fascism!! That's the public education system for ya!
Yeah. There was a ton of this kind of thing that blew up a few years ago. It's similar to what drives schools to have after school clubs and lie about the purpose of the club to the parents.
Post a Comment