Liberalism. Holding down standards in the name of diversity

[waggy]

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.

ok..that's fucking retarded. it's not a slippery slope. KG has many variables that can say how a student does.

bye 2nd or third those even out. you should be able to tell a gifted student or one that is going to fail. there are also test and such that will help.

 

[Matt1970]

ok..that's fucking retarded. it's not a slippery slope. KG has many variables that can say how a student does.

bye 2nd or third those even out. you should be able to tell a gifted student or one that is going to fail. there are also test and such that will help.

As usual it's pointless to argue this further with him. It too early to pick out the gifted students at kindergarten because it's too early in their development, and if you do that's racist.

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.

 

[theeedude]

ok..that's fucking retarded. it's not a slippery slope. KG has many variables that can say how a student does.

bye 2nd or third those even out. you should be able to tell a gifted student or one that is going to fail. there are also test and such that will help.

Maybe. Do controlled experiments, and show that it's actual giftedness, and not just segregating kids into a "gifted" class with better education and treatment that accounts for their better performance.

 

[Drako]

As usual it's pointless to argue this further with him. It too early to pick out the gifted students at kindergarten because it's too early in their development, and if you do that's racist.

He seems like a bottom quartile guy, and just wants to bring everyone down to his level.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

There was no slippery slope until you decided to make one just now. In your attempt to obfuscate the stated reason officially given you decided to include criteria which simply was not an issue for the schools, whether we agree with kindergarten being an appropriate age. You are attempting to refute an argument that I never made.

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.

That is the essence of it. I defy you to find a k-12 age where disparity ends. You can't and you know it so you change tack again.

Do controlled experiments, and show that it's actual giftedness, and not just segregating kids into a "gifted" class with better education and treatment that accounts for their better performance.

Now you explicitly put a condition of race into the mix and abandon age entirely. You now require a demonstration that those who have performed better or demonstrated superior ability by some metric isn't a disparity based on other factors. Punish the achievers until it's demonstrated it isn't because of race. How absurd.

Punish the children for their parents have sinned for being white perhaps? Hold down standards and opportunity in the name of diversity.

Unfortunately you have proven the OP contention at least as far as you and those who use this reasoning are concerned, and I find that mightily offensive. Mediocrity for the sake of racial equality is repugnant.

 

[theeedude]

There was no slippery slope until you decided to make one just now. In your attempt to obfuscate the stated reason officially given you decided to include criteria which simply was not an issue for the schools, whether we agree with kindergarten being an appropriate age. You are attempting to refute an argument that I never made.



That is the essence of it. I defy you to find a k-12 age where disparity ends. You can't and you know it so you change tack again.



Now you explicitly put a condition of race into the mix and abandon age entirely. You now require a demonstration that those who have performed better or demonstrated superior ability by some metric isn't a disparity based on other factors. Punish the achievers until it's demonstrated it isn't because of race. How absurd.

Punish the children for their parents have sinned for being white perhaps? Hold down standards and opportunity in the name of diversity.

Unfortunately you have proven the OP contention at least as far as you and those who use this reasoning are concerned, and I find that mightily offensive. Mediocrity for the sake of racial equality is repugnant.

Whites are being punished if kids go to same kindergarten class?

 

[nehalem256]

Punish the children for their parents have sinned for being white perhaps? Hold down standards and opportunity in the name of diversity.

Punish the children for the sin of not having had their family sufficiently screwed up by liberal values.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Whites are being punished if kids go to same kindergarten class?

Children are being punished if they are denied opportunity. If you prevent the chance because the majority are not a minority then the majority is punished. But you left out this little bit. Those who are not white but for whatever reason are currently achieving beyond their bounds are being punished as well.

Now you switch from race back to kindergarten, creating a circular argument that the schools (remember them, the ones implementing change) didn't make?

Everyone regardless of race ought to have the chance to excel. Some for whatever reason will better academically than others. If race plays a factor determine why that is and give them the same chance, not hobble others in the mean time. Have the bar higher, and do what can be done for everyone, not some lowest common denominator BS.

Why do you hate asian children?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Punish the children for the sin of not having had their family sufficiently screwed up by liberal values.

I am not going there as it is no more relevant to my point than his is to the schoolboard or whatever agency is making this decision.

 

[theeedude]

Children are being punished if they are denied opportunity. If you prevent the chance because the majority are not a minority then the majority is punished. But you left out this little bit. Those who are not white but for whatever reason are currently achieving beyond their bounds are being punished as well.

Now you switch from race back to kindergarten, creating a circular argument that the schools (remember them, the ones implementing change) didn't make?

Everyone regardless of race ought to have the chance to excel. Some for whatever reason will better academically than others. If race plays a factor determine why that is and give them the same chance, not hobble others in the mean time. Have the bar higher, and do what can be done for everyone, not some lowest common denominator BS.

Why do you hate asian children?

What about kids who are denied opportunity to be in a gifted class?

 

[nehalem256]

What about kids who are denied opportunity to be in a gifted class?

They aren't being denied that opportunity anymore than I am being denied the opportunity to be an NFL starting quarterback.

 

[theeedude]

They aren't being denied that opportunity anymore than I am being denied the opportunity to be an NFL starting quarterback.

If the NFL draft was held on first day of kindergarten, you'd have a point.

 

[jhbball]

Children are being punished if they are denied opportunity. If you prevent the chance because the majority are not a minority then the majority is punished. But you left out this little bit. Those who are not white but for whatever reason are currently achieving beyond their bounds are being punished as well.

Now you switch from race back to kindergarten, creating a circular argument that the schools (remember them, the ones implementing change) didn't make?

Everyone regardless of race ought to have the chance to excel. Some for whatever reason will better academically than others. If race plays a factor determine why that is and give them the same chance, not hobble others in the mean time. Have the bar higher, and do what can be done for everyone, not some lowest common denominator BS.

Why do you hate asian children?

'Everyone regardless of race ought to have the chance to excel.' Cool, thanks for agreeing that institutionalized racism is an issue. Now what are the steps we need to take to fix it?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

'Everyone regardless of race ought to have the chance to excel.' Cool, thanks for agreeing that institutionalized racism is an issue. Now what are the steps we need to take to fix it?

That is a whole other topic, and it won't flatter many people as to the causes. For now we're dealing with why Senseamp wants to hold people back.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What about kids who are denied opportunity to be in a gifted class?

I don't know how to get around you preventing them from doing so if your sensibilities are followed. You just prevented minorities from having opportunities. Cannon fodder in the war for having war.

 

[jhbball]

That is a whole other topic, and it won't flatter many people as to the causes. For now we're dealing with why Senseamp wants to hold people back.

How can we talk about one thing, but not the other though? They're tied tightly together.

 

[theeedude]

I don't know how to get around you preventing them from doing so if your sensibilities are followed. You just prevented minorities from having opportunities. Cannon fodder in the war for having war.

What about the kids who are put into an ungifted class? Should they be denied the opportunity to get same education as the kids who are put in a gifted class?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

How can we talk about one thing, but not the other though? They're tied tightly together.

They need to be considered as a whole, however some things are already in place and that is there is opportunity and people aren't being denied because they are minorities at least in this case. In fact the policy of eliminating opportunity as the school system wants is harmful to minorities. In effect it's "I'm sorry, but we have to take you away from your classes because you don't really matter. What counts is that you are black (or whatever) and more white people than black are participating. You have to make the sacrifice for others." That was, is and shall remain my main focus, and bringing into the discussion will not in any way change my position that theirs is right or justified. Punishment is not acceptable for "equality" sake.

But you have raised real concerns and I would say the first thing to do is identify and properly categorize them and in what context.

I propose that we look at the obstacles to educational opportunity to begin with. What are they? Why do they occur? Simply saying "institutionalized racism" isn't sufficient in itself. I think we'd agree that saying someone is of a particular race or ethnicity isn't a reasonable criteria to evaluate someone. So what is?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What about the kids who are put into an ungifted class? Should they be denied the opportunity to get same education as the kids who are put in a gifted class?

And now the "everyone needs to be held to the lowest common denominator" approach? You are validating the OPs contention at least in your case.

Life is not and never will be fair in the sense that we are all equal in fact. You can attempt to legislate away background or biology or differences in individual, that you demand the be identical but it will never be that way. No it's not fair. Someone will be promoted because they are better. Someone will get the scholarship because they worked harder or were smarter. Someone will be better than you. So you are smarter than someone else. Why aren't you suffering for them? Why shouldn't what you have worked towards be taken from you because someone else didn't perform for whatever reason as well as you? That's not fair that you have more than them. You didn't like it that your industry had it's wages limited, did you? Why not? Many haven't nearly as much as you. Stop being selfish. You don't deserve what you have because there's someone who has less. When you are tempted to say "well what about those who got ahead without earning it" stop. That's just been headed off as it's another diversion from the point of THIS topic.

Yeah, right, you are going to divest yourself immediately.

But what you won't apply to yourself but believe others are obliged to hold by still isn't the point, which you are continually trying to get away from. No one is being denied opportunity. Rather they must meet criteria based not on race, which you insist on incorporating, but by some measure of achievement, whether it be by nature or nurture. You don't get to sit in some class and screw off with failing grades to keep some other person out because you have a higher IQ or a particular skin color. Merit. It's not a dirty word. Hard work. It's not something to roll your eyes at. Applied talent isn't shameful, and know what? Not everyone will make it. Why? Life isn't fair, that's why, BUT they certainly ought to have the opportunity to try. That is as right as we can make things. Don't deprive them of it.

 

[theeedude]

And now the "everyone needs to be held to the lowest common denominator" approach? You are validating the OPs contention at least in your case.

Life is not and never will be fair in the sense that we are all equal in fact. You can attempt to legislate away background or biology or differences in individual, that you demand the be identical but it will never be that way. No it's not fair. Someone will be promoted because they are better. Someone will get the scholarship because they worked harder or were smarter. Someone will be better than you. So you are smarter than someone else. Why aren't you suffering for them? Why shouldn't what you have worked towards be taken from you because someone else didn't perform for whatever reason as well as you? That's not fair that you have more than them. You didn't like it that your industry had it's wages limited, did you? Why not? Many haven't nearly as much as you. Stop being selfish. You don't deserve what you have because there's someone who has less. When you are tempted to say "well what about those who got ahead without earning it" stop. That's just been headed off as it's another diversion from the point of THIS topic.

Yeah, right, you are going to divest yourself immediately.

But what you won't apply to yourself but believe others are obliged to hold by still isn't the point, which you are continually trying to get away from. No one is being denied opportunity. Rather they must meet criteria based not on race, which you insist on incorporating, but by some measure of achievement, whether it be by nature or nurture. You don't get to sit in some class and screw off with failing grades to keep some other person out because you have a higher IQ or a particular skin color. Merit. It's not a dirty word. Hard work. It's not something to roll your eyes at. Applied talent isn't shameful, and know what? Not everyone will make it. Why? Life isn't fair, that's why, BUT they certainly ought to have the opportunity to try. That is as right as we can make things. Don't deprive them of it.

I don't see why taxpayer funds should be used to pigeonhole kids into "gifted" and "ungifted" when they show up at kindergarten.
At that point, those "gifts" are nothing more than a reflection of access to good pre-K education, not a kid's potential. The first thing a kid hears when showing up to kindergarten should not be that he's a second class "ungifted" kid. If your kid is so gifted, he'll get ahead in a regular class. Once he demonstrates that his immense "gifts" are too big for a regular classroom, we can talk. In the old days all grades were sharing one classroom, so don't tell me a kindergarten teacher can't accommodate a full range of kids and their "gifts" in one classroom.

 

[nehalem256]

I don't see why taxpayer funds should be used to pigeonhole kids into "gifted" and "ungifted" when they show up at kindergarten.
At that point, those "gifts" are nothing more than a reflection of access to good pre-K education, not a kid's potential. The first thing a kid hears when showing up to kindergarten should not be that he's a second class "ungifted" kid. If your kid is so gifted, he'll get ahead in a regular class. Once he demonstrates that his immense "gifts" are too big for a regular classroom, we can talk. In the old days all grades were sharing one classroom, so don't tell me a kindergarten teacher can't accommodate a full range of kids and their "gifts" in one classroom.

In the old days you could literally whip kids that got out of line.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't see why taxpayer funds should be used to pigeonhole kids into "gifted" and "ungifted" when they show up at kindergarten.
At that point, those "gifts" are nothing more than a reflection of access to good pre-K education, not a kid's potential. The first thing a kid hears when showing up to kindergarten should not be that he's a second class "ungifted" kid. If your kid is so gifted, he'll get ahead in a regular class. Once he demonstrates that his immense "gifts" are too big for a regular classroom, we can talk. In the old days all grades were sharing one classroom, so don't tell me a kindergarten teacher can't accommodate a full range of kids and their "gifts" in one classroom.

And thus our discussion is at an end because it's no sense in helping a dog chase its own tail. You have reverted yet again to an argument that neither I nor the school made, and when that was pointed out turned to race until that was dealt with then it became about age again, which was never the point to begin with. I've even stated that I don't believe a proper assessment can be made at that age, assuming we're talking the vast majority of fully functional minds. Too bad the school didn't address that issue. Instead it effectively based opportunity on race ignoring age completely.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

I think kindergarten is too early to separate students into gifted and ungifted groups. It's a self fulfilling prophecy more than a reflection of the students' true potential at that point.

you've clearly never handled young children before.
intelligence, or lack of, is quite apparent well before pre-K years.

 

[theeedude]

And thus our discussion is at an end because it's no sense in helping a dog chase its own tail. You have reverted yet again to an argument that neither I nor the school made, and when that was pointed out turned to race until that was dealt with then it became about age again, which was never the point to begin with. I've even stated that I don't believe a proper assessment can be made at that age, assuming we're talking the vast majority of fully functional minds. Too bad the school didn't address that issue. Instead it effectively based opportunity on race ignoring age completely.

I don't see an issue with the school's decision.

 

[Geosurface]

Knowledge of IQ score information can shed a lot of light on this story. 130 IQ is the usual threshold used as where "gifted" is said to begin (though of course in a school context, particularly kindergarten, they aren't testing in order to place kids in a gifted class.)

At 130, and for a good distance before it and after it, there is a much higher percentage of whites than blacks. So that would go a long way toward explaining why gifted programs aren't "diverse enough." It's not that there aren't ANY blacks scoring in those upper tiers of IQ, it just isn't very many. And of course there's also just the simple fact that there are still more whites than blacks in the country, which also helps a lot in explaining low representation in these classes. Remember, nobody disputes THAT the scores fall in this pattern and have for decades, only WHY they do.

This has explanatory power NO MATTER WHAT YOU BELIEVE THE CAUSE OF THIS GAP IS - you can believe it's institutional racism, the cycle of poverty, malnutrition, fatherless homes, culture which discourages academic pursuits, white privilege, whatever... pick whatever causes you want. Again, the gap itself is not contested by anyone, and while it remains a fact it is going to have real world implications like this.

So if we decided to shut down gifted programs until we made the score gap disappear entirely, I'm not sure when we'd ever have gifted programs again. Unless you think we're on the cusp of eliminating "white privilege" and all those other possible causes. To me they seem pretty intractable.

But if people are just saying "kindergarten is too early to start gifted programs" - I really don't know how to respond to that. You may have a point, but I'm not a teacher and I don't know how early they can identify giftedness nor how beneficial it is to children to get started on a gifted track of learning as early as possible. I really am unaware of that information. What I do know is that the article described the program as "popular" which would seem to indicate that kids were getting something out of it. Therefore it seems a shame to me that it is being taken away from them or messed with, especially in a way that seems to really demonstrate a lack of knowledge about why that non-diverse result should have been totally expected.