The Off Topic Topic

[HVC]

Wait, the left villainizes gifted programs? Since when?

[Josquius]

Sounds like the issue is programmes that just let rich kids in and don't include gifted kids from poorer backgrounds?

As... Yeah.... That's not great. Though letting others in would be smarter than cutting.

[Sheilbh]

There's lots of education reform that in the US and UK have been incredibly successful particularly for the poorest kids. The Blair-Adonis-Gove reforms in England have worked - and lifted poor kids' attainment up more and faster than other groups.

But despite all of this evidence base they are disliked by a lot of groups in more "progressive" education circles. So the government is currently starting to pick them apart and surprised at the amount of opposition and challenge they're facing. I'd add there's something particularly weird in the Education Secretary, Bridget Philipson, talking about how her motivation for undoing the reforms is because of her experience as a child in the 80s and 90s which failed kids from her type of background. She doesn't seem to have noticed that in the subsequent thirty years and with all of the reforms of New Labour and Gove, her old school is now rated as outstanding and on both exam results and university admissions is one of the best in the region.

Having said all that I am fiercely against any form of selection, which is not necessary (and not part of those reforms). I also find the idea of a "gifted" program for toddlers insane and morally wrong.

[HVC]

I don't know, of the parents I know the further left they are the more special and gifted their little individual Timmy's are. So special and unique they must be given special treatment to highlight their individuality. It's the same mindset that lead to the inane antivax left sentiment. Timmy's too precious to expose to icky vaccines. His body is strong enough to fight any germs since he's so special.

[DGuller]

Wait, the left villainizes gifted programs? Since when?

I imagine the NYC elections were the reason this topic was brought up.  Mamdani is against gifted programs, others are for.  Before Mamdani, de Blasio took a knife to the programs.  The rhetoric is usually the same old equity one, where someone runs the numbers, and if they don't match census distribution, the program is immediately judged as discriminatory. 

Asians are the worst hit in such moves, because they can't even get a stable status on the hierarchy of identities.  On issues like education, where they're the most disproportionate beneficiaries of any merit-based policy, they're not counted as minorities, they're counted as groups whose numbers need to go down for equity reasons.  That's probably why Democrats are losing them the quickest.

[Josquius]

There's lots of education reform that in the US and UK have been incredibly successful particularly for the poorest kids. The Blair-Adonis-Gove reforms in England have worked - and lifted poor kids' attainment up more and faster than other groups.

But despite all of this evidence base they are disliked by a lot of groups in more "progressive" education circles. So the government is currently starting to pick them apart and surprised at the amount of opposition and challenge they're facing. I'd add there's something particularly weird in the Education Secretary, Bridget Philipson, talking about how her motivation for undoing the reforms is because of her experience as a child in the 80s and 90s which failed kids from her type of background. She doesn't seem to have noticed that in the subsequent thirty years and with all of the reforms of New Labour and Gove, her old school is now rated as outstanding and on both exam results and university admissions is one of the best in the region.

Having said all that I am fiercely against any form of selection, which is not necessary (and not part of those reforms). I also find the idea of a "gifted" program for toddlers insane and morally wrong.

I'm fine with it in theory.
It's a huge problem here that we just chuck everyone together which leads to levels in schools averaging out as many schools are just hoping to get as many Cs as possible (or whatever number that is now) and see trying to drag up a lot of kids who don't care to that level as a better use of resources than helping those who should be aiming for As.

I do think things would be better if we could get far more streaming of kids together with those of the same level of ability and interest

Of course Britain being Britain what this led to when we tried it was all the resources going to the top kids whilst the struggling ones were just given up on.
This is not good.
If the system could have been done properly however. As it is in a chunk of Europe. Then it seems good.