Hacker News Reader

Comment by kelnos | Hacker News Reader

That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. When I entered high school (central Maryland), I already had two years of algebra under my belt, which allowed me to jump ahead in HS, which then allowed me to jump ahead in college and take more advanced courses than someone who had to start from the beginning would have had time for.

This is ridiculously short-sighted.

View on HN

Same. This is precisely the wrong way to approach equality: make everyone equally poor. Education is to educate people, why would SF's authority feel the need to regulate what and how much amount people should be educated?

This feels so authoritarian for a city that is branded for liberalism.

While I myself am fairly left-of-center, I acknowledge that "equality of outcomes" is one of the darker undercurrents of liberal thought. There are an amazing number of people who would prefer that everyone be held back, rather than suffer the inequality of some getting further ahead than others.

It's categorically easier to slow or dumb down something than to improve it. It takes exponentially more energy to fight the second law of thermodynamics.

No child left behind means no child gets ahead.

Yes, this makes me think of the idiotic laws in the Province of Quebec which don't allow parents to send their kids to English public schools. The only exception is if at least one parent did attends English public school (which is a minority of the population). Of course, sending your kids to a English private school is always possible ($$$).

So, you have a whole bunch of kids whose parents were immigrants and learned to speak french and go to english school (becoming bilingual, or better).

But, the white french majority of the population is mostly uni lingual because this opportunity of english immersion in school is not accessible to them publicly by law. Talk about no child getting ahead ... Learning english used to be seen as a cultural threat in French Quebec (long time ago), and trying to protect the French language ends up screwing most of the population stuck in 1 language with all the economic, financial and political ramifications of such ridiculous laws.

You're proving their point: you had an "unfair" advantage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com