The Woke Kindergarten looks like satire at this point.
Tracking should come with the ability to move up at multiple levels. So it's not just like, one test in 5th grade (or one teacher's rec) determines whether you basically get to go to college or med school. More like na honors program you can test into in any year.
The punishing of those who defend themselves is a microcosm of enforcing strict rules on the law abiding and letting criminals go free, and is a grave injustice.
I'm a fan of Woke Kindergarten. In general, being anti-police, anti-racism, and anti-authority is a good thing with the advent of AGI. Being subverted to the government and status quo could lead to controlling AGI; see my comments below for more details; now, please don't confuse my ideals or beliefs with extreme anarchy or lawlessness. However, arguing against: a police state, police abuse, racism, and the status quo, are good things for our future → it's interesting that these views in education are coming from the people developing AGI in San Francisco, so I guess they/we have a point.
I do not like ranking or tracking systems. Why not raise the bar for everyone and make tests or assessments more interesting (or individual)? The whole idea of "passing" or "failing" children or teenagers is ridiculous in my opinion (and places like Sweden or Finland agree with me). For those who pass, perhaps offer rewards, but for those who fail, consider implementing measures such as exclusion from official sports participation, a "shame board," mandatory therapy, summer school, or some other form of corrective action (even then, I'm extremely uncomfortable with not letting kids play sports, shaming them, forcing them to go to therapy, ruining their summer, but that's a thousand times better than crucifying them for the rest of their lives with much worse life or career prospects for not being book smart or nerdy compared to their "better behaved" peers).
I couldn't fully grasp the bullying perspective because I don't have access to the tweets and I'm not interested in creating an X account. However, I disagree with your perspective ("...and let criminals go free..."). US self-defense laws are robust, and there are laws like the 'three strikes' which disproportionately impact people of color over non-violent offenses. It's absurd that someone could end up in prison for many years for minor offenses like stealing socks, stealing food/clothes, not returning a library book, or even stealing a car (again, assuming these are non-violent crimes). So it doesn't seem like we're unfairly punishing those who stand up for themselves and "letting criminals go free". If the full context of the bullying discussion (i.e., from the linked Twitter article) refers to situations where those who stand up to bullies are punished, then it seems like the issue should be analyzed contextually. How proportional was the response? There's no justification for responding to verbal abuse with physical retaliation. If you are physically attacked and can't defend yourself in the moment, it is generally considered wrong to retaliate later ( particularly if the response is disproportionate). In such cases, it's better to involve authorities like parents or the police after the incident.
No "anti-racists" are actually "anti-authority". They just want authorities to be used against their enemies instead of themselves.
The most "anti-racist" countries in the world are POLICE STATES! They're police states where if you're deemed to have committed "racism", you get hauled off by POLICE and thrown in a cage.
>are good things for our future → it's interesting that these views in education are coming from the people developing AGI in San Francisco, so I guess they/we have a point.
The people developing AI in SF believe that providing accurate information from the scientific literautre about racial differences in intelligence, crime rates etc. is "racist", so congratulations, you're endorsing an anti-science worldview. This is your foundation for a better future?
> please don't confuse my ideals or beliefs with extreme anarchy or lawlessness.
Okay, then what's your magical solution for the insane rates of black violent crime in the US? "Anti-racism" brainwashing for white kids?
>and the status quo
The status quo? What planet are you living on?
The status quo is that the most dominant institutions in most western countries will harshly punish you for any behavior or speech deemed "racist". The idea that the status quo isn't aligned with your world view is completely absurd.
One black person gets killed by a police officer, and America's hegemonic instituions cheered on black nationalist rioters killing and beating people, burning down stores and so on. Meanwhile, I'm absolutely certain you could not name a single white people killed by a black person over the past decade (you have around 5,000 people to pick from), because America's hegmonic institutions don't think this is a problem worth even mentioning.
The status quo is on your side already, so what more could you want? Should we be like the UK, where jackbooted thugs kidnap you and throw you in a cage for saying negative things about immigrants (while protecting immigrants who rape white British children)?
YOU'RE the authoritarian. YOU have the authoritarian world view. You're just mad that the people with power are not quite as zealous as you are.
>There's no justification for responding to verbal abuse with physical retaliation.
I would bet every cent I own that you're not actually opposed to black people using violence against white people who say "racist" things, though you probably rationalize this as saying that hurting black people's feelings is a form of "violence".
To make the same query choose to group by year and then month. Then under cause of death choose "Injury Intent and Mechanism" and choose Homicide.
Starting in June 2020 we started seeing about 500 more homicides every month in the United States. If we modify the query to show only black victims of homicide, we see about 400 more every month. Black people are roughly 15% of the population but 80% of the additional homicide victims.
In 2018 and 2019 there were 9,608 and 10,090 black homicide victims, respectively. In 2020 there were 13,654, in 2021 there were 14,554. Data hasn't been published for later years.
I don't think whatever benefit we've gotten from anti-police sentiment is worth an additional 6,000 murders per year.
Hi Brandon. Thanks for the link. These numbers are consistent with the effects of the pandemic (if there is a compounding effect from anti-police sentiment, it is likely weakly related, not causal). There is no evidence that anti-police sentiment alone is behind these increases. Since you are talking about black victims, it makes no sense to conflate these numbers with anti-police sentiment. Moreover, most cities have not significantly cut police spending under a defunding initiative, which is often cited as a presumed reason for these numbers. Therefore, linking these statistics directly to 'anti-police sentiment' is not supported by the data on city budget changes. These numbers are likely related to pandemic factors (economic stress) and mental health issues due to the pandemic. I would welcome social research and studies on the causes of these numbers, and would not be surprised if they pointed to the effects of economic inequality and how it dramatically affected different populations during the pandemic. Numbers, in terms of violent crimes such as homicide, are improving again post-pandemic (even if public perception is not — a discrepancy that may involve disinformation).
I don't want to pile on, but I think I can respond as the owner of the comment you replied to.
I think some it looks like commercialized satire because the questions in the posters appear so blatant, cliche, and honestly not very smart? If the questions in the pictures were meant to be serious questions for discussion, maybe. But "what if we abolished money" as a rhetorical question meaning "money should be abolished" is nonsensical, because you'll need a means of exchange in basically any society, however you organize it.
Tracking systems: I don't think I disagree with you fundamentally? They can be problematic and tyrannical if your track is practically irreversible, hard to exit, and completely determines your life path - e.g. the highest one can only be entered through a single exam in 5th grade, and is the only path to college and all intellectual jobs, while being in the slowest track basically bars you from all employment. [Which, by the way, is less of an issue in a market economy, if I can have the freedom to hire someone with a checkered background for a lower price - because then I can give them a job outside the official pipeline and we can both be better off.] On the other hand, tracking academically - especially in high school where each student has an individual schedule anyway - makes total sense, and serves the students best. When I went to high school, I was in honors math and English but never took advanced science classes, as I had no interest or aptitude for them. And the main honors math exam was given freshman year, but you could be recommended or test into it in later grades.
I also don't have Twitter. But I have heard about this more than once anecdotally of kids getting punished for self-defense. The laws in the US are not really that robust, and certainly less so in left-wing states that also seem to have stopped enforcing certain categories of crime. Three strike laws may be a problem (and were probably implemented to combat some OTHER problem in the past) but that doesn't mean no enforcement. Also, why should the majority of residents of high-crime poor neighborhoods have to put up with the small percentage of criminal elements stealing their packages and catalytic converters, sucking *their* children into gang activity and drugs, defacing and littering their streets and buildings?
> I would also note the dramatically difference between socializing in 10th grade versus 12th grade, which I was not previously aware of. Wow.
My guess (and experience) is that this jump is primarily due to teens getting cars and being able to drive themselves when and where they want to socialize. I’m curious if the jump is different in walkable cities vs suburbs.
My guess (based on personal experience) is that its a matter of social groups taking time to form. That is, you leave middle school and go to a high school with different people, you may start out with a friendgroup but as you go through highschool your social sphere widens, and you aquire more and more people with whom to itneract and places to do so. Thus, we are seeing different levels of itneraction within socials groups that have had 4 years to develop, versus those with only 2.
Unfortunately, the publicly available data from the referenced dataset doesn't have geographic data included and requires "IRB approval or exemption" to get it.
For the "Mathematics" subsection, Paul Lockhart is a phenomenal writer about the topic, both A Mathematicians Lament, and Measurement. Best work Ive seen about what it could mean to really "do math" in school.
I always found a mathematician’s lament astoundingly unrealistic. He has some claim in there about how any child can see the inherent interest of maximizing the product of two numbers with a fixed sum, or something like that, which makes me wonder whether he’s ever interacted with even a single child below the 99th percentile.
I think he would agree with the unrealistic part! Its truly a lament, and maybe a kind of fantasy or wish, i dont read it at all as prescription for curriculum. Its just as much poetry as policy. I found it best as a spark for my own curiosity and love of math, which could then be shared with students in the hopes that they could share in it to some extent.
I sent them to a school we found that is a good fit. Unfortunately it would not be practical for us to home school these particular kids at this time, although we did it during the pandemic.
On the math portion - are you familiar with the work of L. P. Benezet?
"For some years I had noted that the effect of the early introduction of arithmetic had been to dull and almost chloroform the child's reasoning facilities." All that drill, he claimed, had divorced the whole realm of numbers and arithmetic, in the children's minds, from common sense, with the result that they could do the calculations as taught to them, but didn't understand what they were doing and couldn't apply the calculations to real-life problems. He believed that if arithmetic were not taught until later on—preferably not until seventh grade—the kids would learn it with far less effort and greater understanding.
I had a super long response to the bullying stuff, but then I realized Shakespeare said it way better "A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once.".
Anyone that's been bullied should be able to reflect on the above, and think about how much better it would feel if instead they made an immediate proportional response. Immediate: you cannot wait to fight back. It's not self-defense if the kid is walking away or has stopped swinging. Proportional: you've gotta respond to the offense that is offered now, not the previous string.
Of course, paired with this is you've got to stop whatever behaviors are marking you out as "the kid to be bullied".
This often seems hard to implement. Teaching/modeling a proportional and immediate response. Tolerating it when your kids brawl so long as they keep it reasonable/proportional/immediate. Modeling and rewarding them for having a stiff upper lip vs whining about bumps and scrapes and dings. Teaching them to have behaviors that make them less of a target (and rewarding them when they do this/punishing them when they don't).
You don't have to go full Koch Brothers with boxing gloves in the basement/man-o-sphere insanity. Redwall is fantastic literature from this perspective, as is Harry Potter and the Chronicles of Narnia (Three Ninjas if you want a movie rec).
Probably have to buck a lot more modern trends when it comes to creating kids that, to be blunt, aren't nebbish dweebs. Teach your kid that they can be smart and nerdy, without being a cringing tattletale. If your kid is getting bullied and you read this going "what should I do now?", then I would suggest that Charles Atlas/Daniel-san LaRusso offer a better outcome than hoping that human nature changes, kids get kind or school administrators suddenly find time to stop shuffling papers and start cracking bully-heads.\
EDIT: Also adding a link to this incredible JM Blakley segment on building confidence which (real confidence) is massively linked the bullying issue.
Suppose he call syou names and stuff. You, of course, do not start a fight over that because thats not a techincally justifiable response.
Later, maybe much later, he swings a punch at you. Had it not been for the previous incidents, you might give him the benefit of the doubt and descalte. But, given the previous plus current situation, beat down it is,
P/S/ One possible view is that people who call you names before they attack you are just giving you the opportunity to get your knife into your hand before they swing a punch,
I mean, personal choice, but if you swing at me I'm swinging back regardless of the backstory (in school, now I'm more mellow and/or wildly better at avoiding stupid situations. Of course, out of the 4 groomsmen in my wedding party I became friends with 3 of them through fights in school and the 4th through the closest thing fencing can come to a fight in college (thus proving even I grew up a little bit).
Huge error bars here of course b/c there wildly different consequences to getting in scrapes in different situations (i.e. what's safe in an upper middle class school might lead to someone's Dad/Brother coming at you with a tire iron in a different school.)
And of course (while short now), I had an early growth spurt (height/size privilege you might say), grew up doing martial arts so knew that getting punched in the face wasn't the end of the world (punched-in-the-face privilege) and was socialized/smart enough that teachers generally liked me (which is a massive privilege in school).
It's so hard, I really feel like the only solution to bullying on a person level is helping your kids avoid being the target (and of course, coming down like a ton of bricks if you detect they are bullying) and this starts long before school.
And? that didn't in any way help me as a child, nor will it help my children if they face bullying. All that theory says if true (and I doubt it's anywhere near absolute) is that we can't rely on the parents of bullies to discipline them, which argues in favour of *stricter* responses from schools and/or victims
Yes, the traditional rule was that you can only use force to stoop someone who is attackong you right now.
Though, i can take a lot of force to stop a determined assailant. Dangerous, potentially lethal force. e.g. if theyre not going to stop until you knock them out.
My experience is that, even during the peak of 0 tolerance nonsense, IF you had parental support the school will admit you were allowed to defend yourself and either wrist slap or do nothing. But of course, this is n=1 (or at least 1 person, there were a couple more fights) and schools seem to be staffed by loonier people now.
I suspect they are less moved by law/reason/sanity and more by threats of "going to board/media/school district head pointing out you're punishing a student for legal and reasonable self defense", so you have to both have outside proof (other student statements, video) and being able to make the credible threat (i.e. the parent has to say it, and be reasonable/coherent enough to make it believable that they can get the ear of a local reporter or the school board).
Those who have parents willing to put the time in can afford reasonable self defense, and those who don't, idk, probably a lot more likely to catch a stray.
Re; bullying.. yes, this is the dynamic. But maybe you just arent hurting the bully seriously enough/
Like, if you just hit him he'll start a fight like that over and over just to cause you trouble, as the small injury is insufficient dett]erent.
Personally, never got trouble again from the two school bullies after (separate occasion, for each) i gave them a serious enough beat down to put them in the Emergency Room. NB: way more force than just punching someone in the face.
====
Though, as a guy, there's a strange bluff dynamic going one here. I have to convince random other guy that if he attacks me, there is a serious possibility that I might take his life, Which may or may not be true. And also, I'm tryig to convince others that I'm not the kind of guy that would do that...
I am told that for the kids these days, the rule is:
if you are attacked, you will be punished even if you don't fight back
I merely note that this tips the game theory even more towards giving the assailant a sever beat down. Like, you're going to be punished anyway, due to circumstances beyond your control. No extra penalty for hurting them. And, if you dont hurt them sufficiently, theyll attack you again and you'll be punishedd again. Therefore, punishment if you DONT put them in the hospital.
(There may be some restrictions on this, like guns or knives not allowed)
Main thing I’ve learned from high school is that the only deterrent is an extreme display of violence in response to the smallest provocation. Guy throws a paper airplane at your head? Gotta get up and try to punch him in the face *immediately*. Anything short of that and you’re in the danger zone.
"Also, we're far more likely to punish generally rule-abiding people who break one rule than we are to punish someone who keeps breaking the rules." It's debatable whether 'rule-abiding' people are punished more harshly for minor infractions than habitual 'offenders'. Consider the impact of "three strikes" laws, which disproportionately punishes non-violent crimes with harsh sentences. Also, think about "white-collar crime" and its effects on the fabric of society. This type of stuff raises significant concerns about fairness and justice in our legal system, and I respectfully disagree with your statement.
“A "trauma-informed" approach to active shooter drills would be…” I agree. Active shooter drills, while designed for safety, can cause significant psychological distress.
"Woke kindergarten" is something I support (especially for the types of reasons stated in the article, such as being generally anti-police, anti-racism, and challenging the status quo, including the Supreme Court, etc.) even if my children's test scores go down. Introducing socially conscious education in early childhood, often referred to as "woke kindergarten," has benefits beyond conventional academic outcomes. Understanding complex social dynamics from a young age can foster empathy and awareness, which leads to a more just society. The trade-off in test scores, if any, is an investment in cultivating well-rounded, socially responsible individuals (not, for example, sociopathic techies or sociopathic jocks as in Silicon Valley or Wall Street, respectively).
“Student tracking” Student tracking segregates by perceived academic ability, which prevents diverse interactions that foster personal growth and empathy among students. My personal experience suggests that a non-tracked educational environment allows for more holistic development by exposing children (or teenagers or young adults) to a variety of peers. Nerds need to hang out and interact with the tough ("thuggish") kids and the normal ("normies") kids.
“Seattle has ended all of its gifted and talented programs.”. 'Gifted programs' should reflect the diversity of our society. This requires proactive efforts to identify and support potential from all ethnic groups, ensuring that no demographic is sidelined due to systemic bias or socioeconomic barriers (or cultural biases, see below). For example, many Black and Latino families may face systemic economic barriers that limit their ability to support their children's educational opportunities in the same way as other families; while the emphasis on academic rigor in some Asian communities is honorable, a balanced approach that develops well-rounded individuals is more equitable and beneficial for all children (and future adults), ensuring that every child has the opportunity to succeed in a variety of ways beyond academics. A diverse educational environment enriches learning and reflects the real-world social fabric, preparing students for broader societal interaction. Academic approaches and academia in general raise subverted individuals. Subverted adults could be the path to dystopia (controlling AGI, to name a few). On the other hand, we might agree that being less educated makes you more vulnerable to the ills of modern society (e.g., gambling, being phished, social media addiction, superficiality, etc.). I belive that we need more good troublemakers in society. The way to go from troublemakers to good troublemakers when it comes to Black and Latino kids is literally equity and inclusivity --> I can attest to this. I was a proud troublemaker in high school and can be considered a 'good troublemaker' as an adult → I did not benefit from any kind of DEI program, but I can see how some Latino and Black kids would benefit since many of them are less privileged than I was.
P.S. To increase accessibility and inclusion, consider including screenshots of relevant Twitter discussions in your newsletter. This would ensure that all readers, regardless of their social media usage, can fully engage with the topics being discussed.
> It's debatable whether 'rule-abiding' people are punished more harshly for minor infractions than habitual 'offenders'
He's talking about bullying in schools, not the legal system.
>Also, think about "white-collar crime" and its effects on the fabric of society.
Insider trading is often completely victimless (and may sometimes have a positive social impact through the integration of information into prices more rapidly). Much white collar crime consists of rich people stealing from other rich people, which doesn't meaningfully impact the "social fabric". And of course, non-whites are disproportionately likely to engage in white collar crime per capita, despite what people claim.
What ACTUALLY impacts America's social fabric is black violent crime which has made many inner cities practically unihabitable for white people.
> The trade-off in test scores, if any, is an investment in cultivating well-rounded, socially responsible individuals
What's "socially responsible" about black people committing more violent crime per capita than all other groups combined?
>Nerds need to hang out and interact with the tough ("thuggish") kids and the normal ("normies") kids.
Why?
These kids did nothing but slow me down and disrupt my learning. Being around them taught me only that I need to live my life in a way that avoids these people as much as possible.
>Gifted programs' should reflect the diversity of our society.
NO, they shouldn't. Society disproportionately depnds of the smartest individuals, and holding them back in the name of "diversity" hurts everyone.
>This requires proactive efforts to identify and support potential from all ethnic groups, ensuring that no demographic is sidelined due to systemic bias or socioeconomic barriers (or cultural biases, see below)
The only "systematic" biases that exist are white and asian kids being discriminated against to benefit less intellectually capable black students.
>For example, many Black and Latino families may face systemic economic barriers that limit their ability to support their children's educational opportunities in the same way as other families;
Poor white kids do better in school than rich black kids, so the socio-economic stuff is complete nonsense. There is no evidence economic factors explain any of the difference in white and black intelligence.
>while the emphasis on academic rigor in some Asian communities is honorable, a balanced approach that develops well-rounded individuals is more equitable and beneficial for all children
On what planet are black kids more "well rounded" than Asian kids?
Asians earn more, commit less crime and anti-social behavior...what are asian people lacking that black people possess?
Black kids need to behave more like asian kids, not the other way around.
>diverse educational environment enriches learning and reflects the real-world social fabric, preparing students for broader societal interaction.
Whites and asians should not have to put up with the criminal and anti-social behavior of black people. Black people are the ones who need to change, not us. It's their fault, not ours.
> belive that we need more good troublemakers in society. The way to go from troublemakers to good troublemakers when it comes to Black and Latino kids is literally equity and inclusivity
There is ZERO EVIDENCE for this. This is all just speculation and narrative. No white or asian person should have to tolerate racial discrimination in order to try and help low-IQ blacks or hispanics.
Your views are too distorted and inaccurate for me to respond. While I tried not to be offensive, I will go ahead and say that you need therapy for your biases, traumas and frustrations.
Thanks Kevin. I'm glad you found it possibly satirical ;) humor can be a powerful way to convey serious ideas (obviously I'm really funny, sometimes I don't realize it, Aspie and all). To be clear though, these are really my beliefs. I try to present them in my own way to keep the conversation interesting. I appreciate your civility in this discussion (unlike the traumatized character who replied above, I actually feel sorry for him) and hope we can exchange ideas in a respectful and perhaps even amusing manner. Let's keep the dialog intelligent and meaningful :)
“ such as being generally anti-police, anti-racism, and challenging the status quo, including the Supreme Court, etc.) even if my children's test scores go down. Introducing socially conscious education in early childhood, often referred to as "woke kindergarten," has benefits beyond conventional academic outcomes”
Being anti-police is very bad for society, entrenches an us versus them attitude which is dangerous and prevents reform. It hinders the ability of police to do their jobs in marginalized communities which makes those communities much worse off.
Anti-racism is just racism, in the sense that it promotes fear and hatred of races toward each other and encourages people to define themselves and each other by race. Also bad for society and marginalized people in particular.
Teaching kids to be racist and to mistrust the police is a bad idea. Doing so at the expense of actual learning is madness.
I appreciate your perspective, but I fundamentally disagree. It is a very popular position you hold. For many in the Black and Latino communities, respect and fair treatment by law enforcement is a contentious issue. The demand is not for special treatment (or maybe, just as white people can "get away with a warning" → we want that too), but for equal (mutual) respect and justice, which should be the right of every citizen or resident, regardless of ethnicity.
Teaching children to respect authority is important, but so is teaching them to stand up for their rights and dignity (as white people do, sometimes very eagerly arguing for their rights against the police, while the police remain calm with them, unlike how they violate and kill or pre-emptively arrest innocent black people when they stand up --> we do not want that). It's not about fostering suspicion or hostility; it's about fostering a sense of self-worth and advocating for equal treatment by all institutions, including the police.
For me, especially now as a Ph.D., I have followed every step of the institutionalization process to be a "good person" or a "good role model" for my community, educated, considerate, I will not teach my children to be "afraid of the police" or to be "overly nice to them", but to be proud and stand up for their rights with dignity, especially with the kind of mistreatment I experienced in the past from some systems, including the police (which made me realize how bad it must be for Latino and Black children and young adults without my privilege and educational background, and who in many cases may be neurodiverse and oppositional like me, not to be understood or treated according to their needs).
As for anti-racism, it's not a mechanism for instilling fear or hatred between races. Instead, it's about promoting understanding and equality, and breaking down systemic barriers that perpetuate discrimination. It's not about defining people by race, but recognizing that systemic inequalities affect how people are treated and perceived in society.
The educational aspects you mention, such as "woke kindergarten," aim to go beyond traditional academic metrics to develop socially conscious individuals who are aware of and can navigate social complexities. The goal is not to diminish traditional learning, but to enhance it by integrating social justice awareness, which is essential in our increasingly diverse society.
I am passionate about these issues because they affect not only me as a Latino, but also my children and future generations. We may disagree, and that's okay. Dialogue is part of the process. What's important is that we discuss these issues openly and try to understand different points of view, even if we don't always agree. And let's keep it respectful and nonjudgmental (e.g., unlike the character who replied above, I really feel sorry for him/her).
I appreciate your civility and the opportunity to hear your perspective, so thanks for that.
As far as not defining people by race, it absolutely is about that because it explicitly rejects the 'I have a dream' style race blindness. I agree that the goals of anti-racism are what you say, but I think in actual practice the results (and the intentions of some bad actors both progressive and anti-progressive) are quite different. Anti-racism tries to make race is salient as possible, encourage individuals to define themselves by their race, and defines those groups as being in opposition in zero-sum games. Once people think of themselves as being in exclusive, competing groups, ingroup/outgroup dynamics will dominate and people and systems will be incentivized to be more racist. Those incentives are stronger than the anti-racists ability to shame a few people into behaving altruistically.
Eventually, people can feel about other races like they do a competing company: Microsoft employees don't have anything against Google workers, but if GOOG drops 5%, Microsoft is not passing a collection plate for them.
What this can look like in practice is a black man quitting a job and unsuccessfully filing a lawsuit over perceived racism, tanking his career. I have seen this twice at a friend's company where there was obviously no racism. Is this company going to treat potential black hires the same way after that? Will they treat black employees the same socially, or be extremely careful around them? Fear and paranoia begets fear and paranoia, and everyone is worse off.
Or it can look like Mr. Hammond above, who probably did not know or care about much of this stuff five years ago, and now cares very much.
Or it can look like UMC white parents pulling their kids out of a public school when AP classes are withdrawn, starting to become resentful about it, and annoyed that they have to spend 40% of their income to afford a place that didn't let homeless people camp out but now apparently does, and questioning why their kids are going to have to work harder to get into the same college: "yes it's to correct systemic biases, and I've always been a good liberal, but the personal cost of this is starting to add up, and why should I sacrifice for biases that I had no part in? Is it possible that *they* (notice the othering) just have bad culture?"
As far as anti-police, this post is already too long.
I wonder how many folks reading this post feel like high school was a complete waste of time for them and wish they’d just went to college at age 13-14? I guess I could’ve also went to a specialized school with a very difficult curriculum but that wasn’t available in my area and also seems like finishing college by age 18 is a better alternative.
As someone who graduated from HS having just turned 15 two months before graduation, I wish I had been the same age as my peers (even though I enjoyed HS immensely, being 2-3 years younger was not without its drawbacks, which led to struggles in young adulthood). I doubt that going to college at 14 would have helped me in any positive way.
See, I was in a similar boat, but being bored shitless in school would not have helped. Having a system whereby I could have hung out at least some of the time with similar-ish age friends while attending ability appropriate classes would have been the true ideal.
Probably depends upon the high school and the college. I went to a good high school and my friends and extra curriculars there were a very positive experience, as were some (not all) of my classes. In college, on the other hand, I went to a large public university, and mostly felt isolated and disconnected.
I sometimes wonder about that, but everyone I know who went to college early had a terrible go of it and regrets the decision. I do wish I had applied to the NCSSM.
The idea that kids are prevented from working jobs in the US seems like a total strawman to me. Coming from Europe, the age and rate at which kids seem be working jobs instead of enjoying being kids in this country are pretty low and high, respectively. So many college kids have full time jobs and some have had them in high school and nobody seems to grasp how absurd that is. Even part time jobs add up quickly. I’ve seen many successful students working multiple jobs during college but that is not a safe recipe for everyone if you want to make the most of your college experience if you can afford it. Summer jobs and small jobs in high school are probably fine, though don’t underestimate teenagers’ need for rest, sleep, self discovery, play, fucking around. None of that is infantilisation. But if anything, American kids seem to have been indoctrinated into the religion of work. I just don’t think it’s remotely plausible that there’s a culture of discouraging kids from working jobs in the US. Or I have yet to see evidence of it.
If that's what you have in mind, this is not evidence for the claim that we are discouraging kids from working. The slightly downward trend is variation within a rather narrow range. Two of the major dips seem to be due to the great recession and the pandemic. But even if there were a clear trend that wouldn't be evidence for the silly claims made in those tweets (which cite zero evidence but you seem fine with it).
The unions and flexible pay result is upon reflection unsurprising; what it reveals is how much teachers are paying (foregoing) for job security, and how much schools are charging (not paying) them for it.
> If you attend most of the classes and are non-disruptive, and are plausibly trying during that time, then we cut you a lot of slack and make it very hard to fail. If you do not attend most of the classes, then nothing bad happens to you automatically, but you are doing that At Your Own Risk. We will no longer save you if you do not pass the tests.
I'm pretty sure your description of the optimal way to handle truancy is how my company is handling remote work. They tell you you're supposed to come in most of the time, and that there will be dire consequences for not doing so, but in practice it's not made an issue unless you're also underperforming.
Something I have wanted to ask for a long time ... girls bullying has a different pattern, I think/
Like, with boys ...
= only a couple of bullies are going to attack you
- everyone else thinks this is really poor behavior on the part of the bully
- but they dont dare help you for fear of becoming victims themselves
- well, the others might help you by getting a weapon to you when the bully comes after you ("hey, you can have my knife") .. this may vary from school to school as to acceptability of weapons
The book censorship debate is seriously confused. People lose their minds when DeSantis and co "ban" left-wing books, but this obviously isn't a principled opposition to book censorship. It's just that the books that these people hate never even make it in libraries and curricula in the first place. People like DeBoer make a lot of very dumb arguments about this being evidence that conservatives "hate free speech", but how many miliseconds would it take for 'The Bell Curve' to be banned from a school if a teacher prescribed it to their students? Easy to be against 'banning books' when the books you hate never make it through the front door in the first place.
Too many people are looking at schools wrong, and the viewpoint matters. They are asking 'what did the schools teach' making the schools responsible for the student's learning. They should be asking 'what did the schools provide the student the opportunity to learn?' It is the responsibility of the student to learn - and it is the responsibility of the school to provide an appropriate learning environment - and that means one free of excessive disruption and intimidation.
My youngest daughter was (is) on the spectrum and realiized immediately that she HATED middle school. I told her that if she was willing to work very hard, we could minimize it. I jumped her in math so she took pre-algebra in 6th grade and high school algebra in 7th grade (I and numerous other parents drove our kids to the high school for the first class of the day for Math and then took our kids to the Middle School). In 7th grade I had her doing about 50% online classes - which she just burned through. And then I had her do Geometry by correspondence over the summer after 7th grade (she asked me lots of questions and I had not done Geometry in 50 years). Then she jumped 8th grade and went to high school - and I gave the principal hell ' we are doing her education my way'. I had her do pre-Calculus by correspondence over the summer after 9th grade so that she could do College Calculus in 10th grade. We had planned on her doing Running start after 10th grade, but she dropped out and went to the University where she did her engineering degree. Her brother, who is not quite as mathematically gifted did the Running Start route.
Both kids found me frustrating in math - I told them that they had to learn things my way as well as the way the teacher was teaching them. Later, when they came to me with other questions I would say - do you remember how I taught you to do long division (or multiplication)? You can handle complex numbers or polynomials the same way.....
Too often school administrators or researchers think that some new idea is working fine without any idea that the more educated parents are making sure that their kids learn it independently of the current idiocy that the school is pushing. And yes, I do remember the 'new math' that Tom Leherer satirized.
School idiocy and chaos cause educated parents to supplement, home school, or shift to private schools. My eldest daughter in Atlanta has shifted to private schools due to Atlanta dropping their college prep track.
> Too often school administrators or researchers think that some new idea is working fine without any idea that the more educated parents are making sure that their kids learn it independently of the current idiocy that the school is pushing. And yes, I do remember the 'new math' that Tom Leherer satirized.
The "Sold A Story" podcast is about exactly this, educators and administrators relying on narratives rather than data, and parents papering over their bad choices with remedial instruction.
Well, if school is mandatory there's also the question of "how does it compare to what I could be providing at home?" and of course "is this good value for the tax money I pay?"
I read all that stuff about how much maths you taught your daughter at home and suspect that the school just ate precious hours there, though possibly they taught her Humanities subjects better than you could have if your own abilities are lopsided
Exciting! Thank you for this roundup!
The Woke Kindergarten looks like satire at this point.
Tracking should come with the ability to move up at multiple levels. So it's not just like, one test in 5th grade (or one teacher's rec) determines whether you basically get to go to college or med school. More like na honors program you can test into in any year.
The punishing of those who defend themselves is a microcosm of enforcing strict rules on the law abiding and letting criminals go free, and is a grave injustice.
I'm a fan of Woke Kindergarten. In general, being anti-police, anti-racism, and anti-authority is a good thing with the advent of AGI. Being subverted to the government and status quo could lead to controlling AGI; see my comments below for more details; now, please don't confuse my ideals or beliefs with extreme anarchy or lawlessness. However, arguing against: a police state, police abuse, racism, and the status quo, are good things for our future → it's interesting that these views in education are coming from the people developing AGI in San Francisco, so I guess they/we have a point.
I do not like ranking or tracking systems. Why not raise the bar for everyone and make tests or assessments more interesting (or individual)? The whole idea of "passing" or "failing" children or teenagers is ridiculous in my opinion (and places like Sweden or Finland agree with me). For those who pass, perhaps offer rewards, but for those who fail, consider implementing measures such as exclusion from official sports participation, a "shame board," mandatory therapy, summer school, or some other form of corrective action (even then, I'm extremely uncomfortable with not letting kids play sports, shaming them, forcing them to go to therapy, ruining their summer, but that's a thousand times better than crucifying them for the rest of their lives with much worse life or career prospects for not being book smart or nerdy compared to their "better behaved" peers).
I couldn't fully grasp the bullying perspective because I don't have access to the tweets and I'm not interested in creating an X account. However, I disagree with your perspective ("...and let criminals go free..."). US self-defense laws are robust, and there are laws like the 'three strikes' which disproportionately impact people of color over non-violent offenses. It's absurd that someone could end up in prison for many years for minor offenses like stealing socks, stealing food/clothes, not returning a library book, or even stealing a car (again, assuming these are non-violent crimes). So it doesn't seem like we're unfairly punishing those who stand up for themselves and "letting criminals go free". If the full context of the bullying discussion (i.e., from the linked Twitter article) refers to situations where those who stand up to bullies are punished, then it seems like the issue should be analyzed contextually. How proportional was the response? There's no justification for responding to verbal abuse with physical retaliation. If you are physically attacked and can't defend yourself in the moment, it is generally considered wrong to retaliate later ( particularly if the response is disproportionate). In such cases, it's better to involve authorities like parents or the police after the incident.
It seems that we have quite different views.
Absurd comment.
"Racism" is not a meaningful word.
>anti-police, anti-racism, and anti-authority i
No "anti-racists" are actually "anti-authority". They just want authorities to be used against their enemies instead of themselves.
The most "anti-racist" countries in the world are POLICE STATES! They're police states where if you're deemed to have committed "racism", you get hauled off by POLICE and thrown in a cage.
>are good things for our future → it's interesting that these views in education are coming from the people developing AGI in San Francisco, so I guess they/we have a point.
The people developing AI in SF believe that providing accurate information from the scientific literautre about racial differences in intelligence, crime rates etc. is "racist", so congratulations, you're endorsing an anti-science worldview. This is your foundation for a better future?
> please don't confuse my ideals or beliefs with extreme anarchy or lawlessness.
Okay, then what's your magical solution for the insane rates of black violent crime in the US? "Anti-racism" brainwashing for white kids?
>and the status quo
The status quo? What planet are you living on?
The status quo is that the most dominant institutions in most western countries will harshly punish you for any behavior or speech deemed "racist". The idea that the status quo isn't aligned with your world view is completely absurd.
One black person gets killed by a police officer, and America's hegemonic instituions cheered on black nationalist rioters killing and beating people, burning down stores and so on. Meanwhile, I'm absolutely certain you could not name a single white people killed by a black person over the past decade (you have around 5,000 people to pick from), because America's hegmonic institutions don't think this is a problem worth even mentioning.
The status quo is on your side already, so what more could you want? Should we be like the UK, where jackbooted thugs kidnap you and throw you in a cage for saying negative things about immigrants (while protecting immigrants who rape white British children)?
YOU'RE the authoritarian. YOU have the authoritarian world view. You're just mad that the people with power are not quite as zealous as you are.
>There's no justification for responding to verbal abuse with physical retaliation.
I would bet every cent I own that you're not actually opposed to black people using violence against white people who say "racist" things, though you probably rationalize this as saying that hurting black people's feelings is a form of "violence".
How is my comment "absurd"?
Where is the "science"?
People suffer because of racism.
I am not mad. I am not authoritarian, if anything my views are anti-authoritarian.
I strongly oppose blacks using physical violence against whites who say racist things.
> In general, being anti-police, anti-racism, and anti-authority is a good thing with the advent of AGI.
I encourage you to look at CDC homicide statistics. Unfortunately I can't share queries directly, but here's their querying tool: http://wonder.cdc.gov/ucd-icd10-expanded.html
To make the same query choose to group by year and then month. Then under cause of death choose "Injury Intent and Mechanism" and choose Homicide.
Starting in June 2020 we started seeing about 500 more homicides every month in the United States. If we modify the query to show only black victims of homicide, we see about 400 more every month. Black people are roughly 15% of the population but 80% of the additional homicide victims.
In 2018 and 2019 there were 9,608 and 10,090 black homicide victims, respectively. In 2020 there were 13,654, in 2021 there were 14,554. Data hasn't been published for later years.
I don't think whatever benefit we've gotten from anti-police sentiment is worth an additional 6,000 murders per year.
Hi Brandon. Thanks for the link. These numbers are consistent with the effects of the pandemic (if there is a compounding effect from anti-police sentiment, it is likely weakly related, not causal). There is no evidence that anti-police sentiment alone is behind these increases. Since you are talking about black victims, it makes no sense to conflate these numbers with anti-police sentiment. Moreover, most cities have not significantly cut police spending under a defunding initiative, which is often cited as a presumed reason for these numbers. Therefore, linking these statistics directly to 'anti-police sentiment' is not supported by the data on city budget changes. These numbers are likely related to pandemic factors (economic stress) and mental health issues due to the pandemic. I would welcome social research and studies on the causes of these numbers, and would not be surprised if they pointed to the effects of economic inequality and how it dramatically affected different populations during the pandemic. Numbers, in terms of violent crimes such as homicide, are improving again post-pandemic (even if public perception is not — a discrepancy that may involve disinformation).
I don't want to pile on, but I think I can respond as the owner of the comment you replied to.
I think some it looks like commercialized satire because the questions in the posters appear so blatant, cliche, and honestly not very smart? If the questions in the pictures were meant to be serious questions for discussion, maybe. But "what if we abolished money" as a rhetorical question meaning "money should be abolished" is nonsensical, because you'll need a means of exchange in basically any society, however you organize it.
Tracking systems: I don't think I disagree with you fundamentally? They can be problematic and tyrannical if your track is practically irreversible, hard to exit, and completely determines your life path - e.g. the highest one can only be entered through a single exam in 5th grade, and is the only path to college and all intellectual jobs, while being in the slowest track basically bars you from all employment. [Which, by the way, is less of an issue in a market economy, if I can have the freedom to hire someone with a checkered background for a lower price - because then I can give them a job outside the official pipeline and we can both be better off.] On the other hand, tracking academically - especially in high school where each student has an individual schedule anyway - makes total sense, and serves the students best. When I went to high school, I was in honors math and English but never took advanced science classes, as I had no interest or aptitude for them. And the main honors math exam was given freshman year, but you could be recommended or test into it in later grades.
I also don't have Twitter. But I have heard about this more than once anecdotally of kids getting punished for self-defense. The laws in the US are not really that robust, and certainly less so in left-wing states that also seem to have stopped enforcing certain categories of crime. Three strike laws may be a problem (and were probably implemented to combat some OTHER problem in the past) but that doesn't mean no enforcement. Also, why should the majority of residents of high-crime poor neighborhoods have to put up with the small percentage of criminal elements stealing their packages and catalytic converters, sucking *their* children into gang activity and drugs, defacing and littering their streets and buildings?
> I would also note the dramatically difference between socializing in 10th grade versus 12th grade, which I was not previously aware of. Wow.
My guess (and experience) is that this jump is primarily due to teens getting cars and being able to drive themselves when and where they want to socialize. I’m curious if the jump is different in walkable cities vs suburbs.
My guess (based on personal experience) is that its a matter of social groups taking time to form. That is, you leave middle school and go to a high school with different people, you may start out with a friendgroup but as you go through highschool your social sphere widens, and you aquire more and more people with whom to itneract and places to do so. Thus, we are seeing different levels of itneraction within socials groups that have had 4 years to develop, versus those with only 2.
Unfortunately, the publicly available data from the referenced dataset doesn't have geographic data included and requires "IRB approval or exemption" to get it.
For the "Mathematics" subsection, Paul Lockhart is a phenomenal writer about the topic, both A Mathematicians Lament, and Measurement. Best work Ive seen about what it could mean to really "do math" in school.
I always found a mathematician’s lament astoundingly unrealistic. He has some claim in there about how any child can see the inherent interest of maximizing the product of two numbers with a fixed sum, or something like that, which makes me wonder whether he’s ever interacted with even a single child below the 99th percentile.
I think he would agree with the unrealistic part! Its truly a lament, and maybe a kind of fantasy or wish, i dont read it at all as prescription for curriculum. Its just as much poetry as policy. I found it best as a spark for my own curiosity and love of math, which could then be shared with students in the hopes that they could share in it to some extent.
As a current public school teacher raised according to an unschooling philosophy... I have a new favorite Substack
Do you send your kids to school or homeschool?
I sent them to a school we found that is a good fit. Unfortunately it would not be practical for us to home school these particular kids at this time, although we did it during the pandemic.
On the math portion - are you familiar with the work of L. P. Benezet?
"For some years I had noted that the effect of the early introduction of arithmetic had been to dull and almost chloroform the child's reasoning facilities." All that drill, he claimed, had divorced the whole realm of numbers and arithmetic, in the children's minds, from common sense, with the result that they could do the calculations as taught to them, but didn't understand what they were doing and couldn't apply the calculations to real-life problems. He believed that if arithmetic were not taught until later on—preferably not until seventh grade—the kids would learn it with far less effort and greater understanding.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-learn/201003/when-less-is-more-the-case-teaching-less-math-in-school
I had a super long response to the bullying stuff, but then I realized Shakespeare said it way better "A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once.".
Anyone that's been bullied should be able to reflect on the above, and think about how much better it would feel if instead they made an immediate proportional response. Immediate: you cannot wait to fight back. It's not self-defense if the kid is walking away or has stopped swinging. Proportional: you've gotta respond to the offense that is offered now, not the previous string.
Of course, paired with this is you've got to stop whatever behaviors are marking you out as "the kid to be bullied".
This often seems hard to implement. Teaching/modeling a proportional and immediate response. Tolerating it when your kids brawl so long as they keep it reasonable/proportional/immediate. Modeling and rewarding them for having a stiff upper lip vs whining about bumps and scrapes and dings. Teaching them to have behaviors that make them less of a target (and rewarding them when they do this/punishing them when they don't).
You don't have to go full Koch Brothers with boxing gloves in the basement/man-o-sphere insanity. Redwall is fantastic literature from this perspective, as is Harry Potter and the Chronicles of Narnia (Three Ninjas if you want a movie rec).
Probably have to buck a lot more modern trends when it comes to creating kids that, to be blunt, aren't nebbish dweebs. Teach your kid that they can be smart and nerdy, without being a cringing tattletale. If your kid is getting bullied and you read this going "what should I do now?", then I would suggest that Charles Atlas/Daniel-san LaRusso offer a better outcome than hoping that human nature changes, kids get kind or school administrators suddenly find time to stop shuffling papers and start cracking bully-heads.\
EDIT: Also adding a link to this incredible JM Blakley segment on building confidence which (real confidence) is massively linked the bullying issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCy3V5SuQio&t=4418s
A possible exception to the "not immediate".
Suppose he call syou names and stuff. You, of course, do not start a fight over that because thats not a techincally justifiable response.
Later, maybe much later, he swings a punch at you. Had it not been for the previous incidents, you might give him the benefit of the doubt and descalte. But, given the previous plus current situation, beat down it is,
P/S/ One possible view is that people who call you names before they attack you are just giving you the opportunity to get your knife into your hand before they swing a punch,
I mean, personal choice, but if you swing at me I'm swinging back regardless of the backstory (in school, now I'm more mellow and/or wildly better at avoiding stupid situations. Of course, out of the 4 groomsmen in my wedding party I became friends with 3 of them through fights in school and the 4th through the closest thing fencing can come to a fight in college (thus proving even I grew up a little bit).
Huge error bars here of course b/c there wildly different consequences to getting in scrapes in different situations (i.e. what's safe in an upper middle class school might lead to someone's Dad/Brother coming at you with a tire iron in a different school.)
And of course (while short now), I had an early growth spurt (height/size privilege you might say), grew up doing martial arts so knew that getting punched in the face wasn't the end of the world (punched-in-the-face privilege) and was socialized/smart enough that teachers generally liked me (which is a massive privilege in school).
It's so hard, I really feel like the only solution to bullying on a person level is helping your kids avoid being the target (and of course, coming down like a ton of bricks if you detect they are bullying) and this starts long before school.
I strongly suspect that the bullies were abused at home.
So, the only guys who are going to attack you have really, really bad parents/
And? that didn't in any way help me as a child, nor will it help my children if they face bullying. All that theory says if true (and I doubt it's anywhere near absolute) is that we can't rely on the parents of bullies to discipline them, which argues in favour of *stricter* responses from schools and/or victims
Yes, the traditional rule was that you can only use force to stoop someone who is attackong you right now.
Though, i can take a lot of force to stop a determined assailant. Dangerous, potentially lethal force. e.g. if theyre not going to stop until you knock them out.
My experience is that, even during the peak of 0 tolerance nonsense, IF you had parental support the school will admit you were allowed to defend yourself and either wrist slap or do nothing. But of course, this is n=1 (or at least 1 person, there were a couple more fights) and schools seem to be staffed by loonier people now.
I suspect they are less moved by law/reason/sanity and more by threats of "going to board/media/school district head pointing out you're punishing a student for legal and reasonable self defense", so you have to both have outside proof (other student statements, video) and being able to make the credible threat (i.e. the parent has to say it, and be reasonable/coherent enough to make it believable that they can get the ear of a local reporter or the school board).
Those who have parents willing to put the time in can afford reasonable self defense, and those who don't, idk, probably a lot more likely to catch a stray.
Re; bullying.. yes, this is the dynamic. But maybe you just arent hurting the bully seriously enough/
Like, if you just hit him he'll start a fight like that over and over just to cause you trouble, as the small injury is insufficient dett]erent.
Personally, never got trouble again from the two school bullies after (separate occasion, for each) i gave them a serious enough beat down to put them in the Emergency Room. NB: way more force than just punching someone in the face.
====
Though, as a guy, there's a strange bluff dynamic going one here. I have to convince random other guy that if he attacks me, there is a serious possibility that I might take his life, Which may or may not be true. And also, I'm tryig to convince others that I'm not the kind of guy that would do that...
I am told that for the kids these days, the rule is:
if you are attacked, you will be punished even if you don't fight back
I merely note that this tips the game theory even more towards giving the assailant a sever beat down. Like, you're going to be punished anyway, due to circumstances beyond your control. No extra penalty for hurting them. And, if you dont hurt them sufficiently, theyll attack you again and you'll be punishedd again. Therefore, punishment if you DONT put them in the hospital.
(There may be some restrictions on this, like guns or knives not allowed)
Main thing I’ve learned from high school is that the only deterrent is an extreme display of violence in response to the smallest provocation. Guy throws a paper airplane at your head? Gotta get up and try to punch him in the face *immediately*. Anything short of that and you’re in the danger zone.
"Also, we're far more likely to punish generally rule-abiding people who break one rule than we are to punish someone who keeps breaking the rules." It's debatable whether 'rule-abiding' people are punished more harshly for minor infractions than habitual 'offenders'. Consider the impact of "three strikes" laws, which disproportionately punishes non-violent crimes with harsh sentences. Also, think about "white-collar crime" and its effects on the fabric of society. This type of stuff raises significant concerns about fairness and justice in our legal system, and I respectfully disagree with your statement.
“A "trauma-informed" approach to active shooter drills would be…” I agree. Active shooter drills, while designed for safety, can cause significant psychological distress.
"Woke kindergarten" is something I support (especially for the types of reasons stated in the article, such as being generally anti-police, anti-racism, and challenging the status quo, including the Supreme Court, etc.) even if my children's test scores go down. Introducing socially conscious education in early childhood, often referred to as "woke kindergarten," has benefits beyond conventional academic outcomes. Understanding complex social dynamics from a young age can foster empathy and awareness, which leads to a more just society. The trade-off in test scores, if any, is an investment in cultivating well-rounded, socially responsible individuals (not, for example, sociopathic techies or sociopathic jocks as in Silicon Valley or Wall Street, respectively).
“Student tracking” Student tracking segregates by perceived academic ability, which prevents diverse interactions that foster personal growth and empathy among students. My personal experience suggests that a non-tracked educational environment allows for more holistic development by exposing children (or teenagers or young adults) to a variety of peers. Nerds need to hang out and interact with the tough ("thuggish") kids and the normal ("normies") kids.
“Seattle has ended all of its gifted and talented programs.”. 'Gifted programs' should reflect the diversity of our society. This requires proactive efforts to identify and support potential from all ethnic groups, ensuring that no demographic is sidelined due to systemic bias or socioeconomic barriers (or cultural biases, see below). For example, many Black and Latino families may face systemic economic barriers that limit their ability to support their children's educational opportunities in the same way as other families; while the emphasis on academic rigor in some Asian communities is honorable, a balanced approach that develops well-rounded individuals is more equitable and beneficial for all children (and future adults), ensuring that every child has the opportunity to succeed in a variety of ways beyond academics. A diverse educational environment enriches learning and reflects the real-world social fabric, preparing students for broader societal interaction. Academic approaches and academia in general raise subverted individuals. Subverted adults could be the path to dystopia (controlling AGI, to name a few). On the other hand, we might agree that being less educated makes you more vulnerable to the ills of modern society (e.g., gambling, being phished, social media addiction, superficiality, etc.). I belive that we need more good troublemakers in society. The way to go from troublemakers to good troublemakers when it comes to Black and Latino kids is literally equity and inclusivity --> I can attest to this. I was a proud troublemaker in high school and can be considered a 'good troublemaker' as an adult → I did not benefit from any kind of DEI program, but I can see how some Latino and Black kids would benefit since many of them are less privileged than I was.
P.S. To increase accessibility and inclusion, consider including screenshots of relevant Twitter discussions in your newsletter. This would ensure that all readers, regardless of their social media usage, can fully engage with the topics being discussed.
> It's debatable whether 'rule-abiding' people are punished more harshly for minor infractions than habitual 'offenders'
He's talking about bullying in schools, not the legal system.
>Also, think about "white-collar crime" and its effects on the fabric of society.
Insider trading is often completely victimless (and may sometimes have a positive social impact through the integration of information into prices more rapidly). Much white collar crime consists of rich people stealing from other rich people, which doesn't meaningfully impact the "social fabric". And of course, non-whites are disproportionately likely to engage in white collar crime per capita, despite what people claim.
What ACTUALLY impacts America's social fabric is black violent crime which has made many inner cities practically unihabitable for white people.
> The trade-off in test scores, if any, is an investment in cultivating well-rounded, socially responsible individuals
What's "socially responsible" about black people committing more violent crime per capita than all other groups combined?
>Nerds need to hang out and interact with the tough ("thuggish") kids and the normal ("normies") kids.
Why?
These kids did nothing but slow me down and disrupt my learning. Being around them taught me only that I need to live my life in a way that avoids these people as much as possible.
>Gifted programs' should reflect the diversity of our society.
NO, they shouldn't. Society disproportionately depnds of the smartest individuals, and holding them back in the name of "diversity" hurts everyone.
>This requires proactive efforts to identify and support potential from all ethnic groups, ensuring that no demographic is sidelined due to systemic bias or socioeconomic barriers (or cultural biases, see below)
The only "systematic" biases that exist are white and asian kids being discriminated against to benefit less intellectually capable black students.
>For example, many Black and Latino families may face systemic economic barriers that limit their ability to support their children's educational opportunities in the same way as other families;
Poor white kids do better in school than rich black kids, so the socio-economic stuff is complete nonsense. There is no evidence economic factors explain any of the difference in white and black intelligence.
>while the emphasis on academic rigor in some Asian communities is honorable, a balanced approach that develops well-rounded individuals is more equitable and beneficial for all children
On what planet are black kids more "well rounded" than Asian kids?
Asians earn more, commit less crime and anti-social behavior...what are asian people lacking that black people possess?
Black kids need to behave more like asian kids, not the other way around.
>diverse educational environment enriches learning and reflects the real-world social fabric, preparing students for broader societal interaction.
Whites and asians should not have to put up with the criminal and anti-social behavior of black people. Black people are the ones who need to change, not us. It's their fault, not ours.
> belive that we need more good troublemakers in society. The way to go from troublemakers to good troublemakers when it comes to Black and Latino kids is literally equity and inclusivity
There is ZERO EVIDENCE for this. This is all just speculation and narrative. No white or asian person should have to tolerate racial discrimination in order to try and help low-IQ blacks or hispanics.
Your views are too distorted and inaccurate for me to respond. While I tried not to be offensive, I will go ahead and say that you need therapy for your biases, traumas and frustrations.
May the universe forgive and bless you.
Have a good day.
I *think* this is satire, but I can't be sure. So it's probably just good satire. Well done!
Thanks Kevin. I'm glad you found it possibly satirical ;) humor can be a powerful way to convey serious ideas (obviously I'm really funny, sometimes I don't realize it, Aspie and all). To be clear though, these are really my beliefs. I try to present them in my own way to keep the conversation interesting. I appreciate your civility in this discussion (unlike the traumatized character who replied above, I actually feel sorry for him) and hope we can exchange ideas in a respectful and perhaps even amusing manner. Let's keep the dialog intelligent and meaningful :)
“ such as being generally anti-police, anti-racism, and challenging the status quo, including the Supreme Court, etc.) even if my children's test scores go down. Introducing socially conscious education in early childhood, often referred to as "woke kindergarten," has benefits beyond conventional academic outcomes”
Being anti-police is very bad for society, entrenches an us versus them attitude which is dangerous and prevents reform. It hinders the ability of police to do their jobs in marginalized communities which makes those communities much worse off.
Anti-racism is just racism, in the sense that it promotes fear and hatred of races toward each other and encourages people to define themselves and each other by race. Also bad for society and marginalized people in particular.
Teaching kids to be racist and to mistrust the police is a bad idea. Doing so at the expense of actual learning is madness.
I appreciate your perspective, but I fundamentally disagree. It is a very popular position you hold. For many in the Black and Latino communities, respect and fair treatment by law enforcement is a contentious issue. The demand is not for special treatment (or maybe, just as white people can "get away with a warning" → we want that too), but for equal (mutual) respect and justice, which should be the right of every citizen or resident, regardless of ethnicity.
Teaching children to respect authority is important, but so is teaching them to stand up for their rights and dignity (as white people do, sometimes very eagerly arguing for their rights against the police, while the police remain calm with them, unlike how they violate and kill or pre-emptively arrest innocent black people when they stand up --> we do not want that). It's not about fostering suspicion or hostility; it's about fostering a sense of self-worth and advocating for equal treatment by all institutions, including the police.
For me, especially now as a Ph.D., I have followed every step of the institutionalization process to be a "good person" or a "good role model" for my community, educated, considerate, I will not teach my children to be "afraid of the police" or to be "overly nice to them", but to be proud and stand up for their rights with dignity, especially with the kind of mistreatment I experienced in the past from some systems, including the police (which made me realize how bad it must be for Latino and Black children and young adults without my privilege and educational background, and who in many cases may be neurodiverse and oppositional like me, not to be understood or treated according to their needs).
As for anti-racism, it's not a mechanism for instilling fear or hatred between races. Instead, it's about promoting understanding and equality, and breaking down systemic barriers that perpetuate discrimination. It's not about defining people by race, but recognizing that systemic inequalities affect how people are treated and perceived in society.
The educational aspects you mention, such as "woke kindergarten," aim to go beyond traditional academic metrics to develop socially conscious individuals who are aware of and can navigate social complexities. The goal is not to diminish traditional learning, but to enhance it by integrating social justice awareness, which is essential in our increasingly diverse society.
I am passionate about these issues because they affect not only me as a Latino, but also my children and future generations. We may disagree, and that's okay. Dialogue is part of the process. What's important is that we discuss these issues openly and try to understand different points of view, even if we don't always agree. And let's keep it respectful and nonjudgmental (e.g., unlike the character who replied above, I really feel sorry for him/her).
I appreciate your civility and the opportunity to hear your perspective, so thanks for that.
As far as not defining people by race, it absolutely is about that because it explicitly rejects the 'I have a dream' style race blindness. I agree that the goals of anti-racism are what you say, but I think in actual practice the results (and the intentions of some bad actors both progressive and anti-progressive) are quite different. Anti-racism tries to make race is salient as possible, encourage individuals to define themselves by their race, and defines those groups as being in opposition in zero-sum games. Once people think of themselves as being in exclusive, competing groups, ingroup/outgroup dynamics will dominate and people and systems will be incentivized to be more racist. Those incentives are stronger than the anti-racists ability to shame a few people into behaving altruistically.
Eventually, people can feel about other races like they do a competing company: Microsoft employees don't have anything against Google workers, but if GOOG drops 5%, Microsoft is not passing a collection plate for them.
What this can look like in practice is a black man quitting a job and unsuccessfully filing a lawsuit over perceived racism, tanking his career. I have seen this twice at a friend's company where there was obviously no racism. Is this company going to treat potential black hires the same way after that? Will they treat black employees the same socially, or be extremely careful around them? Fear and paranoia begets fear and paranoia, and everyone is worse off.
Or it can look like Mr. Hammond above, who probably did not know or care about much of this stuff five years ago, and now cares very much.
Or it can look like UMC white parents pulling their kids out of a public school when AP classes are withdrawn, starting to become resentful about it, and annoyed that they have to spend 40% of their income to afford a place that didn't let homeless people camp out but now apparently does, and questioning why their kids are going to have to work harder to get into the same college: "yes it's to correct systemic biases, and I've always been a good liberal, but the personal cost of this is starting to add up, and why should I sacrifice for biases that I had no part in? Is it possible that *they* (notice the othering) just have bad culture?"
As far as anti-police, this post is already too long.
I wonder how many folks reading this post feel like high school was a complete waste of time for them and wish they’d just went to college at age 13-14? I guess I could’ve also went to a specialized school with a very difficult curriculum but that wasn’t available in my area and also seems like finishing college by age 18 is a better alternative.
Not me but you must be very smart!
Depends on who you compare me with. I'm at the bottom 25% of ACX readers by my estimate but probably better compared to the population overall.
As someone who graduated from HS having just turned 15 two months before graduation, I wish I had been the same age as my peers (even though I enjoyed HS immensely, being 2-3 years younger was not without its drawbacks, which led to struggles in young adulthood). I doubt that going to college at 14 would have helped me in any positive way.
See, I was in a similar boat, but being bored shitless in school would not have helped. Having a system whereby I could have hung out at least some of the time with similar-ish age friends while attending ability appropriate classes would have been the true ideal.
Probably depends upon the high school and the college. I went to a good high school and my friends and extra curriculars there were a very positive experience, as were some (not all) of my classes. In college, on the other hand, I went to a large public university, and mostly felt isolated and disconnected.
I sometimes wonder about that, but everyone I know who went to college early had a terrible go of it and regrets the decision. I do wish I had applied to the NCSSM.
The idea that kids are prevented from working jobs in the US seems like a total strawman to me. Coming from Europe, the age and rate at which kids seem be working jobs instead of enjoying being kids in this country are pretty low and high, respectively. So many college kids have full time jobs and some have had them in high school and nobody seems to grasp how absurd that is. Even part time jobs add up quickly. I’ve seen many successful students working multiple jobs during college but that is not a safe recipe for everyone if you want to make the most of your college experience if you can afford it. Summer jobs and small jobs in high school are probably fine, though don’t underestimate teenagers’ need for rest, sleep, self discovery, play, fucking around. None of that is infantilisation. But if anything, American kids seem to have been indoctrinated into the religion of work. I just don’t think it’s remotely plausible that there’s a culture of discouraging kids from working jobs in the US. Or I have yet to see evidence of it.
Literally simply look up statistics on work rates for teenagers over time instead of arguing from your personal impressions?
If that's what you have in mind, this is not evidence for the claim that we are discouraging kids from working. The slightly downward trend is variation within a rather narrow range. Two of the major dips seem to be due to the great recession and the pandemic. But even if there were a clear trend that wouldn't be evidence for the silly claims made in those tweets (which cite zero evidence but you seem fine with it).
https://www.statista.com/statistics/477668/percentage-of-youth-who-are-enrolled-in-school-and-working-in-the-us
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/06/21/after-dropping-in-2020-teen-summer-employment-may-be-poised-to-continue-its-slow-comeback/
Surely you know better than to make statistics tell you what you want to hear.
The unions and flexible pay result is upon reflection unsurprising; what it reveals is how much teachers are paying (foregoing) for job security, and how much schools are charging (not paying) them for it.
> If you attend most of the classes and are non-disruptive, and are plausibly trying during that time, then we cut you a lot of slack and make it very hard to fail. If you do not attend most of the classes, then nothing bad happens to you automatically, but you are doing that At Your Own Risk. We will no longer save you if you do not pass the tests.
I'm pretty sure your description of the optimal way to handle truancy is how my company is handling remote work. They tell you you're supposed to come in most of the time, and that there will be dire consequences for not doing so, but in practice it's not made an issue unless you're also underperforming.
Something I have wanted to ask for a long time ... girls bullying has a different pattern, I think/
Like, with boys ...
= only a couple of bullies are going to attack you
- everyone else thinks this is really poor behavior on the part of the bully
- but they dont dare help you for fear of becoming victims themselves
- well, the others might help you by getting a weapon to you when the bully comes after you ("hey, you can have my knife") .. this may vary from school to school as to acceptability of weapons
On the other hand .. mean girls
The book censorship debate is seriously confused. People lose their minds when DeSantis and co "ban" left-wing books, but this obviously isn't a principled opposition to book censorship. It's just that the books that these people hate never even make it in libraries and curricula in the first place. People like DeBoer make a lot of very dumb arguments about this being evidence that conservatives "hate free speech", but how many miliseconds would it take for 'The Bell Curve' to be banned from a school if a teacher prescribed it to their students? Easy to be against 'banning books' when the books you hate never make it through the front door in the first place.
Too many people are looking at schools wrong, and the viewpoint matters. They are asking 'what did the schools teach' making the schools responsible for the student's learning. They should be asking 'what did the schools provide the student the opportunity to learn?' It is the responsibility of the student to learn - and it is the responsibility of the school to provide an appropriate learning environment - and that means one free of excessive disruption and intimidation.
My youngest daughter was (is) on the spectrum and realiized immediately that she HATED middle school. I told her that if she was willing to work very hard, we could minimize it. I jumped her in math so she took pre-algebra in 6th grade and high school algebra in 7th grade (I and numerous other parents drove our kids to the high school for the first class of the day for Math and then took our kids to the Middle School). In 7th grade I had her doing about 50% online classes - which she just burned through. And then I had her do Geometry by correspondence over the summer after 7th grade (she asked me lots of questions and I had not done Geometry in 50 years). Then she jumped 8th grade and went to high school - and I gave the principal hell ' we are doing her education my way'. I had her do pre-Calculus by correspondence over the summer after 9th grade so that she could do College Calculus in 10th grade. We had planned on her doing Running start after 10th grade, but she dropped out and went to the University where she did her engineering degree. Her brother, who is not quite as mathematically gifted did the Running Start route.
Both kids found me frustrating in math - I told them that they had to learn things my way as well as the way the teacher was teaching them. Later, when they came to me with other questions I would say - do you remember how I taught you to do long division (or multiplication)? You can handle complex numbers or polynomials the same way.....
Too often school administrators or researchers think that some new idea is working fine without any idea that the more educated parents are making sure that their kids learn it independently of the current idiocy that the school is pushing. And yes, I do remember the 'new math' that Tom Leherer satirized.
School idiocy and chaos cause educated parents to supplement, home school, or shift to private schools. My eldest daughter in Atlanta has shifted to private schools due to Atlanta dropping their college prep track.
> Too often school administrators or researchers think that some new idea is working fine without any idea that the more educated parents are making sure that their kids learn it independently of the current idiocy that the school is pushing. And yes, I do remember the 'new math' that Tom Leherer satirized.
The "Sold A Story" podcast is about exactly this, educators and administrators relying on narratives rather than data, and parents papering over their bad choices with remedial instruction.
Well, if school is mandatory there's also the question of "how does it compare to what I could be providing at home?" and of course "is this good value for the tax money I pay?"
I read all that stuff about how much maths you taught your daughter at home and suspect that the school just ate precious hours there, though possibly they taught her Humanities subjects better than you could have if your own abilities are lopsided