Philosophy Discussion Forums

Recently read an article about a school that shut down its "advanced" classes to provide more funding to the classes for students that were performing below grade level.

On one hand, I understand that the advanced classes are probably full of children that will be just fine with working at the standard grade level pace, and that struggling students should get all of the help that they can. But when it comes down to eliminating advanced classes, or better funding classes for underperforming students, I feel that something of great value is lost by forcing advanced students to simply work along at grade level, and not be pushed by more rigorous courses.

So if you had to choose, what would be your choice? Keep the advanced classes or cut them to better fund the struggling students?

I don't like the idea of shutting down advanced classes. Clearly there's a balance to be found.

One one hand, encouraging the brightest students lays the groundwork for potential high achievement, and perhaps significant contributions to society. On the other hand, neglecting those at the bottom may lay the groundwork for potential future criminality and sabotage.

Best to give an inadequate amount to both - because spending on education, health and welfare is always inadequate anyway. When populations grow rapidly, there is always a backlog.

That's a hard choice. I might take some resources from the advanced classes and give it to the lower performing classes but, for the reason Sy Borg gave, I wouldn't shut down the advanced program altogether. Funding for both is needed. Make the billionaires and corporations pay their fair share of tax and there would be enough to fund education adequately.

HJCarden wrote: ↑April 5th, 2024, 4:41 pm So if you had to choose, what would be your choice? Keep the advanced classes or cut them to better fund the struggling students?

Sy Borg wrote: ↑April 5th, 2024, 6:17 pm I don't like the idea of shutting down advanced classes. Clearly there's a balance to be found.

Yes, a balance. If funds are insufficient, spread the 'pain', by cutting all classes by the same amount. Under- and over-achievers, and the majority in the middle too!, all need and deserve the best education we can afford to give them, yes?

HJCarden wrote: ↑April 5th, 2024, 4:41 pm Recently read an article about a school that shut down its "advanced" classes to provide more funding to the classes for students that were performing below grade level.

On one hand, I understand that the advanced classes are probably full of children that will be just fine with working at the standard grade level pace, and that struggling students should get all of the help that they can. But when it comes down to eliminating advanced classes, or better funding classes for underperforming students, I feel that something of great value is lost by forcing advanced students to simply work along at grade level, and not be pushed by more rigorous courses.

So if you had to choose, what would be your choice? Keep the advanced classes or cut them to better fund the struggling students?

There are five proper times for generosity, good householder.

When a person, being, arrives new.
When one departs.
In times of lack of food.
In times of sickness.
And those who are harmless and virtuous, are worthy to give the best fruits of one's plantation at any time.

And generally, gifts upwardly bind upwardly, while gifts toward lower, increases bond to lower.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 6th, 2024, 8:10 am

HJCarden wrote: ↑April 5th, 2024, 4:41 pm So if you had to choose, what would be your choice? Keep the advanced classes or cut them to better fund the struggling students?

Sy Borg wrote: ↑April 5th, 2024, 6:17 pm I don't like the idea of shutting down advanced classes. Clearly there's a balance to be found.

Yes, a balance. If funds are insufficient, spread the 'pain', by cutting all classes by the same amount. Under- and over-achievers, and the majority in the middle too!, all need and deserve the best education we can afford to give them, yes?

Yes, you don't want to waste the potential of intelligent children by boring them, and you don't want to let the unintelligent fall into chaos, or they may become problematic to all around them.

Nothing is ever fair, trying to create an appropriate context for persons you do not properly know is a recipe for disaster, but what choices do we have? I think the best solution would be to give all students the same high-quality context to grow in, and those that exceed the expectations of the given context be provided with alternatives. Still not fair granted, one's first context is one's family and it is the family that preps the child for success or failure. How can one deal with that, it ultimately is a matter of the differing levels of poverty, people who have been undermined by an early poverty-laden context, meaning material, intellectual, emotional/spiritual tend to pass it on to their children. One can only give to one's children what one has gained for oneself, how do we break the cycle? Working-class people's children will always be at a disadvantage when evaluated against children of richer family contexts children, this is before consideration of the truly gifted child. Resolve this and imagine the future. All children are potential not always, not often, nurtured.

Speaking purely selfishly from the perspective of the school district, one internally logical paradigm would be to determine if the community is such (as is common in depressed economic areas) where successful kids immediately leave the district for greener pastures or stay and contribute. Similarly, are kids that fall behind likely to contribute negatively within the community as, say criminals, or do they have numerous other (nonscholastic) options with which to contribute positively to the community.

Personally, all other things being equal, I would give the money to the advanced class and make mentoring underperforming students part of the curriculum of the advanced studies program.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑April 5th, 2024, 6:17 pm I don't like the idea of shutting down advanced classes. Clearly there's a balance to be found.

One one hand, encouraging the brightest students lays the groundwork for potential high achievement, and perhaps significant contributions to society. On the other hand, neglecting those at the bottom may lay the groundwork for potential future criminality and sabotage.

Best to give an inadequate amount to both - because spending on education, health and welfare is always inadequate anyway. When populations grow rapidly, there is always a backlog.

Okay, but if you HAD to choose, which group of students do you think should get more funding? the advanced students or the ones who are lagging behind?

LuckyR wrote: ↑April 9th, 2024, 1:41 pm Speaking purely selfishly from the perspective of the school district, one internally logical paradigm would be to determine if the community is such (as is common in depressed economic areas) where successful kids immediately leave the district for greener pastures or stay and contribute. Similarly, are kids that fall behind likely to contribute negatively within the community as, say criminals, or do they have numerous other (nonscholastic) options with which to contribute positively to the community.

Personally, all other things being equal, I would give the money to the advanced class and make mentoring underperforming students part of the curriculum of the advanced studies program.

I agree that all other things equal the advanced students should be preferred in the funding for the reason you mentioned. However, I do not agree that as part of an ideal solution these children have to mentor the underperforming students. Too often in school it felt as if no amount of effort or guidance could make some children perform better; the issue was either an internal issue or one not related/untouched by anything the school could do. For example, no amount of funding could correct the home life of a struggling student. I feel if there is increased funding going into eduction, it should be directed toward the children who can best take advantage of it.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑April 6th, 2024, 1:47 am That's a hard choice. I might take some resources from the advanced classes and give it to the lower performing classes but, for the reason Sy Borg gave, I wouldn't shut down the advanced program altogether. Funding for both is needed. Make the billionaires and corporations pay their fair share of tax and there would be enough to fund education adequately.

But if you HAD to choose, which one would you choose and why?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑April 8th, 2024, 6:02 pm Nothing is ever fair, trying to create an appropriate context for persons you do not properly know is a recipe for disaster, but what choices do we have? I think the best solution would be to give all students the same high-quality context to grow in, and those that exceed the expectations of the given context be provided with alternatives. Still not fair granted, one's first context is one's family and it is the family that preps the child for success or failure. How can one deal with that, it ultimately is a matter of the differing levels of poverty, people who have been undermined by an early poverty-laden context, meaning material, intellectual, emotional/spiritual tend to pass it on to their children. One can only give to one's children what one has gained for oneself, how do we break the cycle? Working-class people's children will always be at a disadvantage when evaluated against children of richer family contexts children, this is before consideration of the truly gifted child. Resolve this and imagine the future. All children are potential not always, not often, nurtured.

giving all of the students this supposed high quality learning environment is not an answer to this question. Probably the best way to break this cycle you speak of is to give more funding to the truly gifted students, who can come from all sort of economic backgrounds. The ones that have the most to gain are gifted students from disadvantaged backgrounds who can capitalize off of an enriched and advanced eduction. So, if you HAD to choose, who do you think should get the funding?

HJCarden wrote: ↑April 12th, 2024, 1:25 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑April 9th, 2024, 1:41 pm Speaking purely selfishly from the perspective of the school district, one internally logical paradigm would be to determine if the community is such (as is common in depressed economic areas) where successful kids immediately leave the district for greener pastures or stay and contribute. Similarly, are kids that fall behind likely to contribute negatively within the community as, say criminals, or do they have numerous other (nonscholastic) options with which to contribute positively to the community.

Personally, all other things being equal, I would give the money to the advanced class and make mentoring underperforming students part of the curriculum of the advanced studies program.

I agree that all other things equal the advanced students should be preferred in the funding for the reason you mentioned. However, I do not agree that as part of an ideal solution these children have to mentor the underperforming students. Too often in school it felt as if no amount of effort or guidance could make some children perform better; the issue was either an internal issue or one not related/untouched by anything the school could do. For example, no amount of funding could correct the home life of a struggling student. I feel if there is increased funding going into eduction, it should be directed toward the children who can best take advantage of it.

Oh, you're missing half of the issue. Even if the underperforming students don't improve (which I agree is definitely possible), there are several other benefits to my proposal: first, creating an opportunity for the advanced students to develop empathy (which many likely lack, to their detriment), having to organize concepts students already understand, such that it makes sense to someone else, improves that understanding and lastly even though the underperforming students might not improve scholastically, they likely will benefit from the knowledge that someone cares enough about them to make the attempt.

HJCarden wrote: ↑April 12th, 2024, 1:28 pm

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑April 6th, 2024, 1:47 am That's a hard choice. I might take some resources from the advanced classes and give it to the lower performing classes but, for the reason Sy Borg gave, I wouldn't shut down the advanced program altogether. Funding for both is needed. Make the billionaires and corporations pay their fair share of tax and there would be enough to fund education adequately.

But if you HAD to choose, which one would you choose and why?

You won't like this answer ... it depends :) If I had to choose, it would be on the basis of deeper investigations into the particulars of the situation. It would be strange to make such a decision without considering local and broader contexts. A per my previous comment, there are advantages and disadvantages to each.

Still, in a hypothetical world, where one had to always make a exclusive choice to either fund advanced classes or special ed classes but not both, the society that funds the advanced classes will on average do much better than the society that funds disadvantaged students. We either have industry rising that theoretically "lifts all boats" (but actually delineates winners and losers) like the US, or most people achieving very little together in evenly distributed poverty a la Venezuela.

Still, the advent of AI may change this, one way or another. We have a wild card being placed in the pack and, realistically, no one knows how it will play out, especially in the short-to-medium term, which seems to be the timeline focus of this topic.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 6th, 2024, 8:10 am

HJCarden wrote: ↑April 5th, 2024, 4:41 pm So if you had to choose, what would be your choice? Keep the advanced classes or cut them to better fund the struggling students?

Sy Borg wrote: ↑April 5th, 2024, 6:17 pm I don't like the idea of shutting down advanced classes. Clearly there's a balance to be found.

Yes, a balance. If funds are insufficient, spread the 'pain', by cutting all classes by the same amount. Under- and over-achievers, and the majority in the middle too!, all need and deserve the best education we can afford to give them, yes?

I understand the intent behind striving for balance, but in this case, I don't believe it works effectively. Sometimes, the quest for 'fairness' can lead to both parties being underserved, which ultimately creates more problems. If splitting the funds would result in both classes being run insufficiently, then it might be more prudent to cut one class entirely to ensure the other can operate effectively.