Hypothetical question

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The greatest indicator of academic success is parental GAF. No amount of money can help students overcome a family attitude of “school doesn’t matter”. (Maybe one in a million, and that’s why they make movies about it — because it’s so rare it makes you feel good.)

How ridiculously unfair to deny resources to high achievers because a chunk of the population doesn’t know what good parenting looks like.

I bet you also roll your eyes when your child’s teacher says they’re failing.

Lots of kids from good parenting aren't the best and highest achieving students. Lots of kids from crappy parenting are excellent students. I guarantee you that not all of those kids in the bottom 10% have bad parenting with that indifferent attitude toward education.
Tired of blaming the parents for everything. I'm sure your kid is fabulously successful - but with your attitude, I'm less certain of how great a parent you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Do you not see society benefits exponentially more when we raise the proficiency of the lowest performing people in our country?

No. The upper 10% intelligent people are far more Important to modern society than the bottom 10%. If you don't agree then you're either ignorant or have some biased perspective to further an agenda. The lower 10% can easily be replaced with immigration as well.

Who do you think the lower 10% generally IS?

Generally, the lower 10% are not legal immigrants. This includes many people from Latin America. To say that is to debase, minimize, and group together a diverse population of people.

So you're just debasing and minimizing illegal immigrant children. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting hypothetical.

It would be even more interesting to put spins on it.

-OP's scenario but you know a member of that 10% will cure your grandchild's rare disease

-OP's scenario but the button only works on members of the 10% who are not wealthy

-OP's scenario but it only works on the top 10% in a community that is not your own

It's important to think of it from different angles to tease out where the biases and insecurities lie that are leading to the knee jerk reactions.

OP's scenario but for the bottom 10% wherein one will cure your grandchild's rare disease....

[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?

I would hope a magic button would be able help all the students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The greatest indicator of academic success is parental GAF. No amount of money can help students overcome a family attitude of “school doesn’t matter”. (Maybe one in a million, and that’s why they make movies about it — because it’s so rare it makes you feel good.)

How ridiculously unfair to deny resources to high achievers because a chunk of the population doesn’t know what good parenting looks like.

I bet you also roll your eyes when your child’s teacher says they’re failing.

Lots of kids from good parenting aren't the best and highest achieving students. Lots of kids from crappy parenting are excellent students. I guarantee you that not all of those kids in the bottom 10% have bad parenting with that indifferent attitude toward education.
Tired of blaming the parents for everything. I'm sure your kid is fabulously successful - but with your attitude, I'm less certain of how great a parent you are.

This just isn’t true.

Good parenting doesn’t guarantee a top 10% student, but bad parenting (like an outright hostile attitude toward any authority, including teachers) guarantees a bottom 10% student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The greatest indicator of academic success is parental GAF. No amount of money can help students overcome a family attitude of “school doesn’t matter”. (Maybe one in a million, and that’s why they make movies about it — because it’s so rare it makes you feel good.)

How ridiculously unfair to deny resources to high achievers because a chunk of the population doesn’t know what good parenting looks like.

I bet you also roll your eyes when your child’s teacher says they’re failing.

Lots of kids from good parenting aren't the best and highest achieving students. Lots of kids from crappy parenting are excellent students. I guarantee you that not all of those kids in the bottom 10% have bad parenting with that indifferent attitude toward education.
Tired of blaming the parents for everything. I'm sure your kid is fabulously successful - but with your attitude, I'm less certain of how great a parent you are.

This just isn’t true.

Good parenting doesn’t guarantee a top 10% student, but bad parenting (like an outright hostile attitude toward any authority, including teachers) guarantees a bottom 10% student.

Kinda hard to be a good student when you’re chronically absent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting hypothetical.

It would be even more interesting to put spins on it.

-OP's scenario but you know a member of that 10% will cure your grandchild's rare disease

-OP's scenario but the button only works on members of the 10% who are not wealthy

-OP's scenario but it only works on the top 10% in a community that is not your own

It's important to think of it from different angles to tease out where the biases and insecurities lie that are leading to the knee jerk reactions.

FWIW I would push the button in all of those, without question. If there are no downside how is this a hard decision at all?

The purpose of the hypothetical is to show how many people care more about the relative distribution than anything else. They would rather the entire population were dumber and lower-achieving so long as there's less difference between the top and the bottom.

I agree that is what OP intended, but I don’t think that’s what it is actually showing. My read is that most of the people saying no were fighting the scenario NOT answering the question as written. I think it’s two groups talking past each other.

People fighting the scenario are doing so because they know how poorly received their honest answer would be, and so they’re trying to change the subject.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Do you not see society benefits exponentially more when we raise the proficiency of the lowest performing people in our country?

No. The upper 10% intelligent people are far more Important to modern society than the bottom 10%. If you don't agree then you're either ignorant or have some biased perspective to further an agenda. The lower 10% can easily be replaced with immigration as well.

Who do you think the lower 10% generally IS?

Generally, the lower 10% are not legal immigrants. This includes many people from Latin America. To say that is to debase, minimize, and group together a diverse population of people.

So you're just debasing and minimizing illegal immigrant children. Got it.

Like you said, they're not here legally. They don't deserve the same amount of resources as other groups that legally belong here such as low SES, URM, and legal immigrants. School funding is finite and people keep complaining about limited resources to pay for teachers and student education; we're way past triage for public schools. So sorry, they don't deserve the same treatment as American citizens and legal residents as long as there is a deficit in school funding and general overcrowding in some schools. Although utilitarianism may reduce access to education for some, that's not debasing them. The PP saying that the lower 10% of student performance are obviously immigrants is the one doing the debasing. Was that you??

[Anonymous]

I'd press the button. OK, so what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Do you not see society benefits exponentially more when we raise the proficiency of the lowest performing people in our country?

No. The upper 10% intelligent people are far more Important to modern society than the bottom 10%. If you don't agree then you're either ignorant or have some biased perspective to further an agenda. The lower 10% can easily be replaced with immigration as well.

Who do you think the lower 10% generally IS?

Generally, the lower 10% are not legal immigrants. This includes many people from Latin America. To say that is to debase, minimize, and group together a diverse population of people.

How do you know who is in the lowest 10 percent? Please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Do you not see society benefits exponentially more when we raise the proficiency of the lowest performing people in our country?

No. The upper 10% intelligent people are far more Important to modern society than the bottom 10%. If you don't agree then you're either ignorant or have some biased perspective to further an agenda. The lower 10% can easily be replaced with immigration as well.

Who do you think the lower 10% generally IS?

Generally, the lower 10% are not legal immigrants. This includes many people from Latin America. To say that is to debase, minimize, and group together a diverse population of people.

How do you know who is in the lowest 10 percent? Please.

It’s easy to find test scores by demographic. I’d argue that some (many?) immigrants would have higher scores if the tests were administered in Spanish too.

For other demographics… there’s no language barrier. I understand some families have many advantages compared to others. But everyone can read a book to their kid every once in a while. And it costs zero dollars making sure your kid actually shows up to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd press the button. OK, so what?

Real question:

Does it actually make sense to direct so much funding to kids who realistically will never be able to find meaningful work at the expense of kids who could become brilliant if the right resources were provided?

So much money is spent on sped. And in some circumstances, it’s just respite care for the parents, not anything meaningful academically (or otherwise).

And if inclusion means everyone needs an (expensive) 1:1 aide, WTF are we actually doing?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd press the button. OK, so what?

Real question:

Does it actually make sense to direct so much funding to kids who realistically will never be able to find meaningful work at the expense of kids who could become brilliant if the right resources were provided?

So much money is spent on sped. And in some circumstances, it’s just respite care for the parents, not anything meaningful academically (or otherwise).

And if inclusion means everyone needs an (expensive) 1:1 aide, WTF are we actually doing?!

I would push the button, but I have absolutely no problem with my tax dollars being used as respite care for parents of the severely disabled. Absolutely those families deserve society's support. WTF wouldn't they? What happened to being in a society where we care for the least of these?

[Anonymous]

No- these kids parents are already insufferable, complaining about their kids not getting enough attention/push. It will never be enough for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No- these kids parents are already insufferable, complaining about their kids not getting enough attention/push. It will never be enough for them.

How could you possibly know this, when right now APS is providing, at the elementary level at least, almost nothing at all?