Who benefits from watered down math and science in school?

[Anonymous]

Nysmith is the answer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the people that think that advancing kids in math and science is abuse:

Who are you fighting for? Who benefits from this?

Watering down math and science in public schools would result in private schools reaping the greatest benefits. This would compel parents to enroll their children in private schools to prevent them from lagging behind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:it narrows the achievement gap

I love this!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a few types of kids who benefit:

Those who perform at the newly lowered ceiling and not much higher or lower - although even this kids will suffer in college
Those whose parents can see past the Harrison Bergeron rhetoric and have the money and knowledge necessary to get their kids a proper education outside of school. The parents of the latter are mostly white, and at times the exact same as the ones pushing for these lowered ceilings. Many minorities are either too scared of the tiger mom stereotype, too poor to afford AoPS/RSM, or too ignorant of the possibilities to do anything.

To add: many minorities come from countries where the education system is heavily top-down, so they have 0 clue advocacy is even an option, much less skilled in things like getting their kids in classes with the teachers who do care, petitioning for enrichment, networking with admin to make advocacy easier, etc. etc.

What people cant seem to understand about the equity issue is that some parents will continue to advocate for their child education no matter how many road blocks are put up. And some parents will continue to not care about their childs education no matter how many steps up you give those kids.

Only parents interested in raising their child's performance can effectively close the gap. Unfortunately, those kids and parents have been told its not their fault.

Truth. The achievement gap is really a parenting gap. Not to say that kids who aren’t high achievers have bad parents, but their parents do not place a high priority on academics.

Largely true and why nothing the county does will have much of an impact on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the people that think that advancing kids in math and science is abuse:

Who are you fighting for? Who benefits from this?

They can get the math and science kids from abroad for cheaper. Cheap labor is still needed until we can robotize everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the people that think that advancing kids in math and science is abuse:

Who are you fighting for? Who benefits from this?

Who said that?

+1 There's a lot of straw men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a few types of kids who benefit:

Those who perform at the newly lowered ceiling and not much higher or lower - although even this kids will suffer in college
Those whose parents can see past the Harrison Bergeron rhetoric and have the money and knowledge necessary to get their kids a proper education outside of school. The parents of the latter are mostly white, and at times the exact same as the ones pushing for these lowered ceilings. Many minorities are either too scared of the tiger mom stereotype, too poor to afford AoPS/RSM, or too ignorant of the possibilities to do anything.

To add: many minorities come from countries where the education system is heavily top-down, so they have 0 clue advocacy is even an option, much less skilled in things like getting their kids in classes with the teachers who do care, petitioning for enrichment, networking with admin to make advocacy easier, etc. etc.

What people cant seem to understand about the equity issue is that some parents will continue to advocate for their child education no matter how many road blocks are put up. And some parents will continue to not care about their childs education no matter how many steps up you give those kids.

Only parents interested in raising their child's performance can effectively close the gap. Unfortunately, those kids and parents have been told its not their fault.

Truth. The achievement gap is really a parenting gap. Not to say that kids who aren’t high achievers have bad parents, but their parents do not place a high priority on academics.

Largely true and why nothing the county does will have much of an impact on this.

This requires blaming parents. No one wants to do that. I blame adults all the time for poor performance on other things. In the case of equity related changes that are designed to address gaps created by poor parenting, you would be blaming URMs, and that is not allowable these days.

How could a school that has built an entire platform around compensating for poor parenting, turn around and do that. Not going to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a few types of kids who benefit:

Those who perform at the newly lowered ceiling and not much higher or lower - although even this kids will suffer in college
Those whose parents can see past the Harrison Bergeron rhetoric and have the money and knowledge necessary to get their kids a proper education outside of school. The parents of the latter are mostly white, and at times the exact same as the ones pushing for these lowered ceilings. Many minorities are either too scared of the tiger mom stereotype, too poor to afford AoPS/RSM, or too ignorant of the possibilities to do anything.

To add: many minorities come from countries where the education system is heavily top-down, so they have 0 clue advocacy is even an option, much less skilled in things like getting their kids in classes with the teachers who do care, petitioning for enrichment, networking with admin to make advocacy easier, etc. etc.

What people cant seem to understand about the equity issue is that some parents will continue to advocate for their child education no matter how many road blocks are put up. And some parents will continue to not care about their childs education no matter how many steps up you give those kids.

Only parents interested in raising their child's performance can effectively close the gap. Unfortunately, those kids and parents have been told its not their fault.

Truth. The achievement gap is really a parenting gap. Not to say that kids who aren’t high achievers have bad parents, but their parents do not place a high priority on academics.

Largely true and why nothing the county does will have much of an impact on this.

This requires blaming parents. No one wants to do that. I blame adults all the time for poor performance on other things. In the case of equity related changes that are designed to address gaps created by poor parenting, you would be blaming URMs, and that is not allowable these days.

How could a school that has built an entire platform around compensating for poor parenting, turn around and do that. Not going to happen.

This thread is filled with a whole lot of people claiming things without evidence and then criticizing and making assumptions about things they claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a few types of kids who benefit:

Those who perform at the newly lowered ceiling and not much higher or lower - although even this kids will suffer in college
Those whose parents can see past the Harrison Bergeron rhetoric and have the money and knowledge necessary to get their kids a proper education outside of school. The parents of the latter are mostly white, and at times the exact same as the ones pushing for these lowered ceilings. Many minorities are either too scared of the tiger mom stereotype, too poor to afford AoPS/RSM, or too ignorant of the possibilities to do anything.

To add: many minorities come from countries where the education system is heavily top-down, so they have 0 clue advocacy is even an option, much less skilled in things like getting their kids in classes with the teachers who do care, petitioning for enrichment, networking with admin to make advocacy easier, etc. etc.

What people cant seem to understand about the equity issue is that some parents will continue to advocate for their child education no matter how many road blocks are put up. And some parents will continue to not care about their childs education no matter how many steps up you give those kids.

Only parents interested in raising their child's performance can effectively close the gap. Unfortunately, those kids and parents have been told its not their fault.

Truth. The achievement gap is really a parenting gap. Not to say that kids who aren’t high achievers have bad parents, but their parents do not place a high priority on academics.

Largely true and why nothing the county does will have much of an impact on this.

This requires blaming parents. No one wants to do that. I blame adults all the time for poor performance on other things. In the case of equity related changes that are designed to address gaps created by poor parenting, you would be blaming URMs, and that is not allowable these days.

How could a school that has built an entire platform around compensating for poor parenting, turn around and do that. Not going to happen.

This thread is filled with a whole lot of people claiming things without evidence and then criticizing and making assumptions about things they claim.

Except someone else wrote an article supporting me so everyone should just listen to me. Case closed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the people that think that advancing kids in math and science is abuse:

Who are you fighting for? Who benefits from this?

They can get the math and science kids from abroad for cheaper. Cheap labor is still needed until we can robotize everything.

Very interesting take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone because it's a race to the bottom

Exactly. Just take note of their end goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the people that think that advancing kids in math and science is abuse:

Who are you fighting for? Who benefits from this?

The main beneficiaries are the kids who aren't smart or motivated enough to be in the top track, but still want the benefits of being in the top track. If your kid belongs in 8th grade Algebra, and you prevent all of the kids who belong in 7th grade Algebra from taking it until 8th, it makes your kid look better in comparison.

This is the exact reason people want to dissolve AAP. Then they don't have to admit their kid didn't make it.

Truth. They will shriek and deny, but it’s the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a few types of kids who benefit:

Those who perform at the newly lowered ceiling and not much higher or lower - although even this kids will suffer in college
Those whose parents can see past the Harrison Bergeron rhetoric and have the money and knowledge necessary to get their kids a proper education outside of school. The parents of the latter are mostly white, and at times the exact same as the ones pushing for these lowered ceilings. Many minorities are either too scared of the tiger mom stereotype, too poor to afford AoPS/RSM, or too ignorant of the possibilities to do anything.

To add: many minorities come from countries where the education system is heavily top-down, so they have 0 clue advocacy is even an option, much less skilled in things like getting their kids in classes with the teachers who do care, petitioning for enrichment, networking with admin to make advocacy easier, etc. etc.

What people cant seem to understand about the equity issue is that some parents will continue to advocate for their child education no matter how many road blocks are put up. And some parents will continue to not care about their childs education no matter how many steps up you give those kids.

Only parents interested in raising their child's performance can effectively close the gap. Unfortunately, those kids and parents have been told its not their fault.

Truth. The achievement gap is really a parenting gap. Not to say that kids who aren’t high achievers have bad parents, but their parents do not place a high priority on academics.

Why is the assumption always that those parents don't prioritize academics? Have you ever considered that parents can care about academics but at the same time be entirely incapable of providing any help due to their own very limited education or inability to afford enrichment?

BU's Bempechat has an interesting article, with a section titled "Homework and Social Class". (Pages 40-41 below.) She highlights ways low-income parents do help their students despite limited education or funds.
https://www.educationnext.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/ednext_xix_1_bempechat.pdf

Bempechat argues that:
"research shows that low-income parents who are unable to assist with homework are far from passive in their children’s learning, and they do help foster scholastic performance." ... "In another recent study, researchers examined mathematics achievement in low-income 8th-grade Asian and Latino students. Help with homework was an advantage their mothers could not provide. They could, however, furnish structure (for example, by setting aside quiet time for homework completion), and it was this structure that most predicted high achievement. As the authors note, 'It is . . . important to help [low-income] parents realize that they can still help their children get good grades in mathematics and succeed in school even if they do not know how to provide direct assistance with their child’s mathematics homework.' ”

So, just like I said in the post above yours

Yes, supports exactly what you said. Thanks for your post; particularly useful since you have firsthand experience.

I'll tell you what else I knew starting in summer 2020 - that these kids were going to be particularly F-ed with all virtual for a year. Frustrates me that the school board knows less than me. But I hate people so I can't run.

Sorry, no. It’s 2023. You’re really going to have to stop with this line and get a new excuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a few types of kids who benefit:

Those who perform at the newly lowered ceiling and not much higher or lower - although even this kids will suffer in college
Those whose parents can see past the Harrison Bergeron rhetoric and have the money and knowledge necessary to get their kids a proper education outside of school. The parents of the latter are mostly white, and at times the exact same as the ones pushing for these lowered ceilings. Many minorities are either too scared of the tiger mom stereotype, too poor to afford AoPS/RSM, or too ignorant of the possibilities to do anything.

To add: many minorities come from countries where the education system is heavily top-down, so they have 0 clue advocacy is even an option, much less skilled in things like getting their kids in classes with the teachers who do care, petitioning for enrichment, networking with admin to make advocacy easier, etc. etc.

What people cant seem to understand about the equity issue is that some parents will continue to advocate for their child education no matter how many road blocks are put up. And some parents will continue to not care about their childs education no matter how many steps up you give those kids.

Only parents interested in raising their child's performance can effectively close the gap. Unfortunately, those kids and parents have been told its not their fault.

Truth. The achievement gap is really a parenting gap. Not to say that kids who aren’t high achievers have bad parents, but their parents do not place a high priority on academics.

Why is the assumption always that those parents don't prioritize academics? Have you ever considered that parents can care about academics but at the same time be entirely incapable of providing any help due to their own very limited education or inability to afford enrichment?

BU's Bempechat has an interesting article, with a section titled "Homework and Social Class". (Pages 40-41 below.) She highlights ways low-income parents do help their students despite limited education or funds.
https://www.educationnext.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/ednext_xix_1_bempechat.pdf

Bempechat argues that:
"research shows that low-income parents who are unable to assist with homework are far from passive in their children’s learning, and they do help foster scholastic performance." ... "In another recent study, researchers examined mathematics achievement in low-income 8th-grade Asian and Latino students. Help with homework was an advantage their mothers could not provide. They could, however, furnish structure (for example, by setting aside quiet time for homework completion), and it was this structure that most predicted high achievement. As the authors note, 'It is . . . important to help [low-income] parents realize that they can still help their children get good grades in mathematics and succeed in school even if they do not know how to provide direct assistance with their child’s mathematics homework.' ”

So, just like I said in the post above yours

Yes, supports exactly what you said. Thanks for your post; particularly useful since you have firsthand experience.

I'll tell you what else I knew starting in summer 2020 - that these kids were going to be particularly F-ed with all virtual for a year. Frustrates me that the school board knows less than me. But I hate people so I can't run.

Sorry, no. It’s 2023. You’re really going to have to stop with this line and get a new excuse.

Remote learning hurt our kids and made my toilet water spin backwards!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a few types of kids who benefit:

Those who perform at the newly lowered ceiling and not much higher or lower - although even this kids will suffer in college
Those whose parents can see past the Harrison Bergeron rhetoric and have the money and knowledge necessary to get their kids a proper education outside of school. The parents of the latter are mostly white, and at times the exact same as the ones pushing for these lowered ceilings. Many minorities are either too scared of the tiger mom stereotype, too poor to afford AoPS/RSM, or too ignorant of the possibilities to do anything.

To add: many minorities come from countries where the education system is heavily top-down, so they have 0 clue advocacy is even an option, much less skilled in things like getting their kids in classes with the teachers who do care, petitioning for enrichment, networking with admin to make advocacy easier, etc. etc.

What people cant seem to understand about the equity issue is that some parents will continue to advocate for their child education no matter how many road blocks are put up. And some parents will continue to not care about their childs education no matter how many steps up you give those kids.

Only parents interested in raising their child's performance can effectively close the gap. Unfortunately, those kids and parents have been told its not their fault.

Truth. The achievement gap is really a parenting gap. Not to say that kids who aren’t high achievers have bad parents, but their parents do not place a high priority on academics.

Why is the assumption always that those parents don't prioritize academics? Have you ever considered that parents can care about academics but at the same time be entirely incapable of providing any help due to their own very limited education or inability to afford enrichment?

BU's Bempechat has an interesting article, with a section titled "Homework and Social Class". (Pages 40-41 below.) She highlights ways low-income parents do help their students despite limited education or funds.
https://www.educationnext.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/ednext_xix_1_bempechat.pdf

Bempechat argues that:
"research shows that low-income parents who are unable to assist with homework are far from passive in their children’s learning, and they do help foster scholastic performance." ... "In another recent study, researchers examined mathematics achievement in low-income 8th-grade Asian and Latino students. Help with homework was an advantage their mothers could not provide. They could, however, furnish structure (for example, by setting aside quiet time for homework completion), and it was this structure that most predicted high achievement. As the authors note, 'It is . . . important to help [low-income] parents realize that they can still help their children get good grades in mathematics and succeed in school even if they do not know how to provide direct assistance with their child’s mathematics homework.' ”

So, just like I said in the post above yours

Yes, supports exactly what you said. Thanks for your post; particularly useful since you have firsthand experience.

I'll tell you what else I knew starting in summer 2020 - that these kids were going to be particularly F-ed with all virtual for a year. Frustrates me that the school board knows less than me. But I hate people so I can't run.

Sorry, no. It’s 2023. You’re really going to have to stop with this line and get a new excuse.

The effects of virtual learning are very apparent and damaging in 2023. The share of kids failing standardized tests is much higher now than pre-covid. Remediating learning loss should be the number one priority.