Hypothetical question

[Anonymous]

The discussion of the APS gifted program (or lack thereof) got me wondering about a hypothetical question regarding education.

Let's say you had a button. If pressed, this magic button would, at no cost to the school system or anyone else, increase the academic achievements of the current top 10% of students by a significant amount (say one-half to a full standard deviation). This would show up in grades and test scores, but it would represent real increases in skill and ability as well. Pressing the button would have no impact on anyone other than the top 10%.

Would you press the button?

[Anonymous]

You present no downsides. No increased financial cost. No opportunity cost to the other 90%. Under those (unrealistic) circumstances, why would anybody say no? That top 10% might cure cancer or Alzheimers with the button and not without.

Realistically gifted education does come with opportunity costs, so it's harder to say for sure then, isn't it? A bus to TJ is a bus that doesn't go somewhere else. A teacher who only teaches gifted math in 3rd grade is one who isn't teaching everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The discussion of the APS gifted program (or lack thereof) got me wondering about a hypothetical question regarding education.

Let's say you had a button. If pressed, this magic button would, at no cost to the school system or anyone else, increase the academic achievements of the current top 10% of students by a significant amount (say one-half to a full standard deviation). This would show up in grades and test scores, but it would represent real increases in skill and ability as well. Pressing the button would have no impact on anyone other than the top 10%.

Would you press the button?

No.
How about we press a similar button for the bottom 10% instead?
What a perfect example of why the stark disparities are perpetuated - focusing on what the top is missing rather than actually providing what the bottom requires.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You present no downsides. No increased financial cost. No opportunity cost to the other 90%. Under those (unrealistic) circumstances, why would anybody say no? That top 10% might cure cancer or Alzheimers with the button and not without.

Realistically gifted education does come with opportunity costs, so it's harder to say for sure then, isn't it? A bus to TJ is a bus that doesn't go somewhere else. A teacher who only teaches gifted math in 3rd grade is one who isn't teaching everyone else.

I'm the OP, and you raise good points all around. If there is no downside, why not? Right? But if you look at the response above mine, you'll see that a lot of people would refuse because the top 10% don't "need help". Pressing the button would necessarily increase the "achievement gap" even though it isn't actually making anyone worse off. And for a lot of people out there, that's the only reason they need no to press the button.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The discussion of the APS gifted program (or lack thereof) got me wondering about a hypothetical question regarding education.

Let's say you had a button. If pressed, this magic button would, at no cost to the school system or anyone else, increase the academic achievements of the current top 10% of students by a significant amount (say one-half to a full standard deviation). This would show up in grades and test scores, but it would represent real increases in skill and ability as well. Pressing the button would have no impact on anyone other than the top 10%.

Would you press the button?

No.
How about we press a similar button for the bottom 10% instead?
What a perfect example of why the stark disparities are perpetuated - focusing on what the top is missing rather than actually providing what the bottom requires.

Don't fight the hypothetical, as they say in law school. I'd gladly press the button for the bottom 10%. But in the original question the button does nothing to anyone outside the top 10%. It doesn't stop anyone from directing existing resources towards students achieving less.

Basically it's a solution that improves overall outcomes without narrowing the distribution of outcomes. To put it another way, if you had a tool which cost nothing, improved lives, but wouldn't actually close the disparities you're concerned about, would you deny those people the chance to improve their lives?

[Anonymous]

No. The top 10% already have an advantage over the other 90%. Would not make sense to put further funds to a group that is already at an advantage.

[Anonymous]

Do I think giving the top 10% who are at an incredible advantage already for the rest of their life an additional boost? Not really. and also I have to consider which I think would benefit society better? Helping the top, the middle 80 or the bottom 10? The obvious answer is helping the bottom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. The top 10% already have an advantage over the other 90%. Would not make sense to put further funds to a group that is already at an advantage.

Read the first post. Assume it costs nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do I think giving the top 10% who are at an incredible advantage already for the rest of their life an additional boost? Not really. and also I have to consider which I think would benefit society better? Helping the top, the middle 80 or the bottom 10? The obvious answer is helping the bottom.

In this scenario, pressing the button does nothing to prevent you from doing as much or more to help the bottom. Would you still not press it in that case?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. The top 10% already have an advantage over the other 90%. Would not make sense to put further funds to a group that is already at an advantage.

DP. Do you not see that our society benefits when we raise the proficiency of the smartest people in our country?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The discussion of the APS gifted program (or lack thereof) got me wondering about a hypothetical question regarding education.

Let's say you had a button. If pressed, this magic button would, at no cost to the school system or anyone else, increase the academic achievements of the current top 10% of students by a significant amount (say one-half to a full standard deviation). This would show up in grades and test scores, but it would represent real increases in skill and ability as well. Pressing the button would have no impact on anyone other than the top 10%.

Would you press the button?

No.
How about we press a similar button for the bottom 10% instead?
What a perfect example of why the stark disparities are perpetuated - focusing on what the top is missing rather than actually providing what the bottom requires.

This is such an Arlington answer. And a big part of why I don't live there anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The discussion of the APS gifted program (or lack thereof) got me wondering about a hypothetical question regarding education.

Let's say you had a button. If pressed, this magic button would, at no cost to the school system or anyone else, increase the academic achievements of the current top 10% of students by a significant amount (say one-half to a full standard deviation). This would show up in grades and test scores, but it would represent real increases in skill and ability as well. Pressing the button would have no impact on anyone other than the top 10%.

Would you press the button?

No.
How about we press a similar button for the bottom 10% instead?
What a perfect example of why the stark disparities are perpetuated - focusing on what the top is missing rather than actually providing what the bottom requires.

Don't fight the hypothetical, as they say in law school. I'd gladly press the button for the bottom 10%. But in the original question the button does nothing to anyone outside the top 10%. It doesn't stop anyone from directing existing resources towards students achieving less.

Basically it's a solution that improves overall outcomes without narrowing the distribution of outcomes. To put it another way, if you had a tool which cost nothing, improved lives, but wouldn't actually close the disparities you're concerned about, would you deny those people the chance to improve their lives?

I disagree it improves overall outcomes. How much more can the top 10% improve? And it isn't improving overall outcomes if outcomes for 90% aren't improved.

[Anonymous]

Yes, of course. In the hypothetical, there is no cost to anyone else, so why not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do I think giving the top 10% who are at an incredible advantage already for the rest of their life an additional boost? Not really. and also I have to consider which I think would benefit society better? Helping the top, the middle 80 or the bottom 10? The obvious answer is helping the bottom.

In this scenario, pressing the button does nothing to prevent you from doing as much or more to help the bottom. Would you still not press it in that case?

You haven't changed the scenario. My answer remains "no."
Are you adding a condition that the bottom 80% are also being helped with equal/proportionate significance as the top 10% are? In that case, press the button because it's helping everyone proportionately. But that's not the scenario.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, of course. In the hypothetical, there is no cost to anyone else, so why not?

Because it isn't necessary. The top 10% don't NEED the boost.
Just like the top 1% don't need a tax break.