Hacker News Reader

Comment by asmos7 | Hacker News Reader

Our education in the US is in the same position. We spend far more time, energy and money on problematic students who don't give a rip than we do on dedicated/motivated students.

The goal posts aren't there. If a certain number of students fail it creates red flags for the district and if those students are a certain minority that can viewed as evidence of institutional racism and open up legal liabilities as such the districts are highly motivated to pass everyone along but to not to make the good and willing better.

View on HN

Chance are, the dedicated/motivated students likely have a far more supportive environment than the kids on the bottom. Increasing resources and support to the top kids will surely increase inequality, while also improving the top's capabilities.

Meanwhile, the kids at the bottom get left behind.

In US "gifted" education, we take top performers and throw them into more rigorous study without any real decent support, at least in public schools. I was in the gifted program and I assure you we have no more support, at home, or at school -- you were just expected to do more. Both of my parents worked and relied on the school's aftercare program to support me. It did not do wonders for a 10-12 year old.

I turned out relatively fine but I would rank my time in the "gifted" program as an active harm to that from what I remember.

its important to say that the vast majority of kids at the bottom get left behind because of the parents. Parents that aren't involved, don't review homework, don't instill good study habits, set their kids up for failure. There are plenty of reasons why parents don't get involved. Those reasons range from working too much, to they don't give a shit.

And parents that work odd hours, multiple jobs, have insecure income streams, and whose parents also suffered the same so they also don’t have the necessary knowledge and network for success.

This exactly, as I stated elsewhere I was in the gifted program but because my parents were unable to be involved more thoroughly from both working whether I was in that program or not doesn't really compare to the lack of parental support in terms of how it all worked out for me.

All I am pointing out that gifted kids likely have supportive environment that nurtured their growth, even if it's just parents that can throw money at problems. What happens if you throw societal support at them? They will likely do even better.

They will be better educated, have more economic opportunities, more financial support from society, and be more well connected.

Meritocratic programs exacerbate inequality and grow the divide between the kids at the top and those at the bottom.

Maybe we shouldn't stop doing them, but we need to think about supporting the bottom, such as free lunch, without exception.

Based on my experiences, many "bottom parents" don't want support, or they've delegated the job of "education" to teachers. Getting parents to care matters.

Free lunch doesn't do that. full bellies learn better, but if mom/dad have a "who cares" attitude, that is very likely to flow down to kids.

I also acknowledge the challenge of getting people to care. Its no easy feat.

“Are tests biased against students who don’t give a shit?”

https://www.theonion.com/in-the-know-are-tests-biased-agains...

Isn't the parent stating too many people are doing exactly what you're proposing, which is protesting that services are being provided to people who don't deserve it?

(Separating children into deserving and undeserving categories of educational attention seems that way to me...)

Not separating into inherently deserving and undeserving, but those who desire a good education and those who do not. There are students in poor schools who push to become learned in spite of obstacles. Think Ben Carson for an example. And there are those who have tons of resources and opportunities but fail to use them, those who don't care about learning something. I knew quite a few of the former, people who would go to the library for extra study or to learn things after school. And I knew quite a few of the latter, who would go home and play video games or go out and drink, who didn't care about learning anything.

In today's school system, the resources go to those who do not desire an education. This is because of programs like "no child left behind", and because a higher graduation rate looks better. But I think we should make a normative judgement that those who do not make an effort to better themselves should receive no support from society. Put less money into summer schools for kids who fail, and put more money into before- and after-school tutoring. This will benefit those who put in the effort to the detriment of those who don't care, which is a good trade-off.

And this is how we get a permanent underclass. I don't disagree with the overall thought that we should spend effort on people who appreciate and care for that effort to be spent. I just think that in practice, the effects would be disastrous.

Yea, pay now (education) or pay later (prison / public assistance). You can't just say, well this person doesn't care or is hopeless so not my problem!

My argument is that all children inherently want to learn. All children desire a good education, defined as being in a supportive environment where their curiosities can be wholly quenched and allowed to thrive. There's no child that's born not giving a flying fuck about anything, only children who don't have that curiosity beaten out of them by the world. Labeling literally children as irredeemable only adds to their beating.

Why can't we have summer schools and before/after-school tutoring?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com