There's a decent amount of work where having teachers focus on the lowest performers raised the overall performance average. Sounds obvious but when left to their own devices it seems that teachers still spend way too much time with the high performers.
At least that's what I've heard as conclusions to various bits of education research over the years
Not necessarily; he might just mean that parents who did poorly in school are more likely to raise children who also do poorly in school. Some people and cultures value education, and some don't, and they tend to pass that on to their children.
I saw this myself growing up, as my extended family on my mother's side were white, rural people, who weren't educated and didn't value education at all. Luckily she kept me away from them most of the time and pushed me to do well in school and go to college; I was the first person in her family to finish college as a result. If I had spent all my time growing up with my cousins, that probably wouldn't have happened.
As for reproduction, many of those poorly-educated cousins went on to become teenage parents...
Maybe the fact that it was such a big sacrifice is one of the reasons why some people tend not to value it, as it requires them to deeply change a lot of their cultural values. Maybe it is not that they don't value education, but they don't value the culture that formal education entails (white collar, college educated, city life culture). Speaking broadly here, of course. A quick and extreme example to me is the mandatory native american reeducation camps. These peoples were subjected to a complete change in culture in addition to education.
I think that in a perfect world, we could do a shift in education, and instead of molding the people to the culture necessary to succeed academically, we can mold education to fit the people.
They stated a hypothesis and asked if anyone had collected data that could support it. You responded by asking that person if they have any data. Perhaps you scored poorly on reading comprehension.
I read their questions as bad faith. But also, I am not here to research your bad takes. I will happily research my own bad takes but the onus is not on me to go prove or disprove every bad take someone makes on the Internet.
Is it possible that aliens came down from earth to steal pineapples? Does anyone have data to prove my claim?
It's patently absurd for me to expect someone responding to this to actually go make my argument for me.
> the onus is not on me to go prove or disprove every bad take someone makes on the Internet
then just ignore their comment, nobody forced you to engage or reply, and not every comment is written specifically for xracy.
you could also reflect the fact that you responded to a bad take (your opinion) with bad faith and arguably made the situation worse by adding nothing of value, or no value, and instead negative value :)
I see this as a dog-whistle in its most benign form. Which is why hiding behind the 'just asking questions' defense feels like expansion of the 'bad faith'.
Additionally, I don't think it's 'bad faith' to call what they're proposing like the basis for the movie Idiocracy.
The problem is that like, every version of this ends up being racist somewhere down the line. But because it's a dog-whistle my options are to engage with it, and have them hide, or to call it out for what it is, and attempt to have them explain their take and clarify their bad position to the point of not hiding behind the 'just asking questions' defense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence <- Someone called out this link in response to my comment. All of the old versions of this use IQ, which was primarily developed to distinguish between the intelligence of "white people" and "other people" these days we couch it in 'class' basing the assumption that 'poor' = 'stupid', and 'rich' = 'smart'. But this also tends to be a proxy for race in a lot of meaningful ways (so-called 'model minorities' being the exception that makes the rule).
Now, I can call all of that out, and admittedly I have here. But they're not going to stake out their position if I do. They're going to run and hide because I've said the scary things that let them know they're in the wrong and that they should pretend like they weren't dog-whistling.
Admittedly over topics that aren't dog-whistles I appreciate the appeal to: https://xkcd.com/386/ But this reads like a dog-whistle to me.
It's a verboten topic in many places, but is it possible that children of the lowest performers are also low performers?
And is it possible that the lowest performers at math might not in fact also be low performers at reproduction?
Has anyone dared collect data on such things?