My mother-in-law fights this illogic today. She heads up our county's ESL and G&T programs. The school system is constantly taking funds from the English as a Second Language kids, but never touching the G&T programs. The programs are about socio-economic politics, not best-practices in education. Those in power preserve their benefits at the expense of those who really need assistance.I'm "guessing" G&T parents are vastly more represented and vociferous than the lower-level performing kids, which is why their benefits are preserved, exactly in the way the benefits of rich people are protected, sometimes at the cost of those less fortunate. We don't say "hey, let's give this $2B to the poor" if there's some oil company that wants it, since the oil companies are wining and dining the people who decide such things, while poor people just get sick and die.
To me, I suppose it's always a tough question when it comes to school programs. Let's say you could put a number on a kid's potential from 1 to 10 and assumed 50% would be at 5, 25% at 2 and the other 25% at 7. With a finite amount of money to spend, do you use it to get the kids from 2 to 5, or 7 to 10? Is having 100% at 5+ more beneficial than having 25% at 7+, with 25% still at 2+/-? Or does having that much more kids at 7+ offset the 2+/- enough to warrant spending that much more on them? Especially when, according to what Sully's been posting, it doesn't really make a difference in the end anyway?
FULL DISCLOSURE: After being the smartest kid in the room for years I was finally put in G&T in the 5th grade; on the first day I got the highest grade on a spelling quiz (98, motherscratchers - spelled February wrong) and then slipped into a nice, warm bath of almost incomprehensible academic mediocrity for the rest of my school career.
SIDE NOTE TO DISCLAIMER: That class was taught by Mrs. Shipp, who should not have in any way been allowed to teach a G&T class. Fucking hell.
No comments:
Post a Comment