Liberalism. Holding down standards in the name of diversity

[Newell Steamer]

Liberals hate people that excel,

It's not that we hate them - it's what our masters tell us to do; water down and suppress the best of America.

 

[Jhhnn]

You must have missed this part: It sure appears that they are doing this because of some notion of 'fixing' lack of diversity among the high performing group of students.

Each student should be able to learn at their pace. That is impossible to do unless you have a 1-1 teacher to student ratio. Splitting off smaller sections of classes to better cater to the needs of the students makes sense. The only opposition comes from those who apparently don't like the outcomes, they want the outcomes to adhere to some arbitrary rules that nature obviously does not follow.

You just want it to appear that they are "fixing" the system for reasons tweaking your easily outraged culture warrior sensibilities. Of course smaller groups enhance learning, which takes more teachers. I suppose that's what Cut! cut! Cut! is all about, huh?

 

[boomerang]

How much longer will we put up with this mode of thinking? In how many more elections will we put people in positions that have the power to continue these practices?

 

[Jhhnn]

Right, because people either have a completely obvious, undeniable mental disability OR if they don't, then they're all exactly the same as everyone else who doesn't. Only these two categories exist - undeniably retarded vs. exactly the same as everyone who isn't. That doesn't at all fly in the face of how biology works (a gradient) or anything.

You do strawmen too! How quaint.

Teachers deal with kids of that age for a living. I expect ranchers can probably size up good genetics and promising breeding candidates when they have a new calf born or go to a cattle auction, pretty quickly and reliably after enough years.

You may not like the comparison, but I don't find it hard to believe that teachers can at least sometimes pick up (pretty quickly) who the gifted kids are. If they miss one they can add him to the classes later.

So what?

But intelligence is connected to a lot of other valuable human qualities. Many of which depend on intelligence to some degree.

Again, So what?

Right, which is why we shouldn't let ANYONE invest a million bucks no matter how beneficial it is to our economy and society, because not everyone can!

Two strawmen in the same post! Now we're getting somewhere, huh?

Well, IQ is linked to income... and mainstream IQ heritability estimates from such sources as the American Psychological Association are all pretty high like, 75% heritable or near that.

So, you would expect to find intelligent people over-represented among the more well to do portions of your society.

The same genes which enabled their parents to succeed in adulthood are enabling the kids to succeed in childhood.

That was much of the basis for royalty & divine right for millenia. It was the basis for Jim Crow in many respects. I mean, black children obviously aren't as intelligent from a racist POV, therefore their schools can be shitty because better would be pointless, right? Why, we'd divert resources from those who can better use them, white kids, and that'd be bad for Merricuh.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's not that we hate them - it's what our masters tell us to do; water down and suppress the best of America.

Yeh, it's almost like miscegenation, huh?

 

[Jhhnn]

How much longer will we put up with this mode of thinking? In how many more elections will we put people in positions that have the power to continue these practices?

Yeh, white male privilege ain't what it used to be, huh?

 

[nehalem256]

They're only superior in terms of conventional measures of intelligence. It doesn't speak to other valuable human qualities at all.

Such as what? Moral fiber? I don't think most poor communities in the US are exactly filling with that either.

Perhaps athletic ability. But that really has nothing to do with education and is hence irrelevant

Gifted programs, in general, have better student to teacher ratios, not to mention extra funding.

So just like special ed right? Why don't we see you calling for ending special ed programs as being unequal?

So, uhh, what's next? Will you claim that test scores being better among wealthy suburban school districts is because the kids are smarter, or what?

At least partially. Also probably because the students are given a set of values that naturally lead to better academic achievement.

Is it really a surprise that the children of parents who have succeeded will also tend to succeed? Both because of superior genetics and superior values.

 

[nehalem256]

That was much of the basis for royalty & divine right for millenia. It was the basis for Jim Crow in many respects. I mean, black children obviously aren't as intelligent from a racist POV, therefore their schools can be shitty because better would be pointless, right? Why, we'd divert resources from those who can better use them, white kids, and that'd be bad for Merricuh.

Why are you bringing race into things?

Did what he say scare you, as it implies liberalism's dream of an equal society is impossible, and the only response you have is to try and deflect to calling him a racist?

 

[boomerang]

Yeh, white male privilege ain't what it used to be, huh?

I imagine that plays well with the crowd you run with but to the rest of us, it reeks of sheer ignorance.

 

[Matt1970]

Strawman #2!

We all know this as well. Whenever you don't like reality you can just call it strawman.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Fuck that. Teachers oppose pay for performance, arguing they can't be held accountable for poor results due to lack of parental involvement and other factors. Yet when their kids do well, they claim credit for the out-performance. You can't have it both ways, and there's no reason to dump more money into an opaque system where its workers argue its impossible to evaluate their performance.

I have family who are teachers and I can tell you they work their asses off trying to teach kids of parents who complain about teachers who don't teach, while themselves being completely ignorant and uninvolved in their children's education except for complaining about an opaque system they never bothered to try to seriously interact with.

Certainly there are bad teachers, but they often result from people with the attitude you communicate. In the majority of cases I've encountered it's the home influence that kills any drive in the student. After a decade or more that would ruin anyone's attitude. For many on the right it's teachers, for the left it's doctors. Ignorance is no excuse and perhaps both sides should have paid more attention in class. Slap your parents.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

At first day of kindergarten, you don't know who could excel and who couldn't. You simply know whose parents could afford pre-K and whose couldn't.

You and others are arguing a point that isn't relevant in this instance. The status of the program has nothing to do with age.

A popular gifted-student program at a New York City elementary school is getting the ax after school officials decided it lacked diversity.

They aren't shutting this down because of concerns (which I believe have merit) regarding when and how to educate children of different aptitudes, but they aren't "black" or "hispanic" or "insert minority here" enough.

All else being equal I see no reason to deny opportunity to people because they aren't a minority.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

At first day of kindergarten, you don't know who could excel and who couldn't. You simply know whose parents could afford pre-K and whose couldn't.

You and others are arguing a point that isn't relevant in this instance. The status of the program has nothing to do with age.

A popular gifted-student program at a New York City elementary school is getting the ax after school officials decided it lacked diversity.

They aren't shutting this down because of concerns of age appropriateness (which I believe have merit) regarding when and how to educate children of different aptitudes, but they aren't "black" or "hispanic" or "insert minority here" enough.

All else being equal I see no reason to deny opportunity to people because they aren't a minority.

 

[Jhhnn]

Such as what? Moral fiber? I don't think most poor communities in the US are exactly filling with that either.

Perhaps athletic ability. But that really has nothing to do with education and is hence irrelevant

Perhaps you merely mouth right wing stereotypes.

So just like special ed right? Why don't we see you calling for ending special ed programs as being unequal?

So you equate those who need help with those who have advantages in the determination of what resources they should receive? Perhaps you'd care to apply that line of thinking to the difference between a drowning swimmer & a guy standing on the beach.

At least partially. Also probably because the students are given a set of values that naturally lead to better academic achievement.

Is it really a surprise that the children of parents who have succeeded will also tend to succeed? Both because of superior genetics and superior values.

Or would that simply be because of superior resources?

Values? Is that why states considered to be conservative bastions have some of the worst educational outcomes?

Superior genetics? You don't bear the White Man's burden lightly, do you?

 

[Orignal Earl]

I read the OP
I know liberal policies have allowed someone like the OP, Geo, Incor to get to the point that they condemn them
I chuckle to myself

 

[Matt1970]

Or would that simply be because of superior resources?

Values? Is that why states considered to be conservative bastions have some of the worst educational outcomes?

Superior genetics? You don't bear the White Man's burden lightly, do you?

If a liberal state has low educational outcomes it's because of a lack of resources. A conservative state would have low educational outcomes because of values. Countdown to strawman response in 3......2.......1.......

 

[theeedude]

You and others are arguing a point that isn't relevant in this instance. The status of the program has nothing to do with age.



They aren't shutting this down because of concerns of age appropriateness (which I believe have merit) regarding when and how to educate children of different aptitudes, but they aren't "black" or "hispanic" or "insert minority here" enough.

All else being equal I see no reason to deny opportunity to people because they aren't a minority.

I don't see any reason to segregate kids into "gifted" and "ungifted" on first day of kindergarten. The effect of such program is segregation by race.

 

[nehalem256]

Or would that simply be because of superior resources?

Values? Is that why states considered to be conservative bastions have some of the worst educational outcomes?

Perhaps because the "conservative bastions" also tend to have the highest percentage of minorities?

Might as well ask how come liberal bastions also have the highest percentage of financial corporations that destroy the economy. Why do you think that is?

Superior genetics? You don't bear the White Man's burden lightly, do you?

Why do you keep bringing race into things?

 

[waggy]

I think this is a mistake for the school to do. We should not punish those that are smarter or work harder.

Though i will say school's in general are far worse then they were.

I don't see any reason to segregate kids into "gifted" and "ungifted" on first day of kindergarten. The effect of such program is segregation by race.

i agree. KG is far to early. also far to many thinks can effect how teacher views the child. IF you have a younger kid and other parents "red-shirt" (hold the child back so they are older and bigger. for either education or sport reasons) then you have a less mature child. the then may not put a smart child into the gifted class or put a older more mature child in the gifted thinking they are when in reality the child is normal.

I have no issue with gifted class's and are all for them. i don't get the idea of holding a child back because it might hurt another students feelings or the other bullshit reasons people want to end them.

though i disagree with you that it is "segregation by race". and frankly that is a racist remark. you are pretty much saying that one race is more intelligent then another. That is not reality.

 

[Matt1970]

I don't see any reason to segregate kids into "gifted" and "ungifted" on first day of kindergarten. The effect of such program is segregation by race.

Only if you feel a certain race is less intelligent than another.

 

[nehalem256]

Only if you feel a certain race is less intelligent than another.

That is essentially what liberals do believe. They just code that belief by using the phrase "white privilege".

Saying white privilege is no different that saying that minorities are disabled.

Just google "deaf privilege" if you have any doubt of what I am saying. Privilege and disability are just 2 ways of looking at the same thing.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't see any reason to segregate kids into "gifted" and "ungifted" on first day of kindergarten. The effect of such program is segregation by race.

"The first day of kindergarten".

Ok. The second day? First grade? Second? Twelfth? Never?

I believe you will find minorities underrepresented by number at any grade level. By your condition of association between "gifted" and "segregation by race" you have effectively banned any conceivable program as the world currently exists. Your problem is that you aren't looking at this from an age appropriate situation, but are insisting that a second condition be placed upon it which is separate from the first.

 

[glenn1]

I don't see any reason to segregate kids into "gifted" and "ungifted" on first day of kindergarten. The effect of such program is segregation by race.

Parents who care about their kids education already segregate them; it's called the suburbs or private schools. If you live in the city (like NYC in the OP's story) and send your kids to public school then you deserve whatever shitty outcome you get and I have no sympathy for you.

 

[theeedude]

"The first day of kindergarten".

Ok. The second day? First grade? Second? Twelfth? Never?

I believe you will find minorities underrepresented by number at any grade level. By your condition of association between "gifted" and "segregation by race" you have effectively banned any conceivable program as the world currently exists. Your problem is that you aren't looking at this from an age appropriate situation, but are insisting that a second condition be placed upon it which is separate from the first.

OK, then why wait until first day of kindergarten to segregate? Why not at age 3? 2? at birth, before birth? At what point do these supposed "gifts" manifest themselves? If you can play slippery slope, so can I.

 

[nehalem256]

OK, then why wait until first day of kindergarten to segregate? Why not at age 3? 2? at birth, before birth? At what point do these supposed "gifts" manifest themselves? If you can play slippery slope, so can I.

Are you seriously asking why schools don't segregate students into gifted classes before the student starts attending school?