We need to spend much more on high achieving students and less on underachieving students. amirite?

96%Yeah You Are4%No Way
Assangeofficials avatar Education
0 33
The voters have decided that Assangeofficial is right! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.

Or we could rebuild the education system to serve different learning styles and minds instead of trying to force everyone to learn the same way.

No. We need to support all students. There are many reasons why an "underachiever" is underachieving.

We should not just hang them out to dry.

I you realize that that would create inequality among students. Might even be a Cilvi Rights Act violation because It would disproportionately affect minorities. It would favor Asian Americans and disfavor African Americans

Dr-pens avatar Dr-pen Yeah You Are +4Reply

Access to education for the many. Not the elite few.

I think all students deserve the chance to reach their full potential. Some students struggle in school but have the potential to do great things. And some successful students fail in the real world.

opensofiass avatar opensofias Yeah You Are +3Reply

That's a lot of words and I'm not even going to read them. I'm just going to say we should spend more money on schools, period. Everyone should get more help. Teachers should be millionaires. Lunches should be free.

Fight me, losers.

We need to spend much more on getting high achieving students and less on underachieving students.


mattyh2433s avatar mattyh2433 Yeah You Are +3Reply

Completely agree. Students with good grades should be pampered.

ambitiouscorners avatar ambitiouscorner Yeah You Are +3Reply

We need to challenge all kids and find their skill.

The kids that can solve our world problems have already been born, they just lack the opportunities to do so.

Iapetus-11s avatar Iapetus-11 Yeah You Are +2Reply

We, as a nation, spend a massive amount of money on bringing underachieving students up to the minimum, and basically nothing trying to maximize the potential of high achieving students.

I'm not sure that is true.

High achieving students often come from families and cultures that value education. Their parents will ensure these students go to good schools, will pay for tutoring if they can afford it, and will leverage free resources (from the school system, public libraries, or other institutions) to give them the best opportunity to succeed.

Underperforming students often come from families and cultures who don't value education. These students are put into whatever the local school is, are only required to do the bare minimum in school, and their parents don't even try to improve their educational outcomes.

The net result is that high achievers are often getting access to far more resources than the underachievers.

This is just mass social conditioning which is an ugly concept. You are proposing that those with access to food, water, stable/wealthy families should be favored while the lower class are cut off support. This just increases inequality and homicide, protest and violence would sky rocket which is a fact.

"We, as a nation..."

Yeah, now I know precisely what country are you talking about and to whom :)

"The system" is trying to get all students to a baseline level and ready to continue their education on their own when they leave high school.

"Underachievers" need more attention and intervention to get to that level, so yes that translates to more funding.

"High achievers" will be fine - they will be able to understand the material, learn on their own and seek other education opportunities if they want more of a challenge.

There's not nearly enough funding for SpEd classes and teachers. There's not enough funding for schools in general, but to suggest that we should let SpEd students and struggling students lag behind and have less of an education, so that OP can have more AP classes, is cruel.

I afraid this lead to "we need to make more competent people for society's sake and discard underachievers" type of thinking.

Mytokhondrias avatar Mytokhondria Yeah You Are +2Reply

We need more to spend on everyone period. Shouldn't have to come down to one or the other.

I think the focus and funding should be on the talented kids. They have proven their ability to learn, and will make good use of the time and money etc given to them.

Realistically in the long term, special ed students are never going to worth the time and effort. Poking and pushing them along when they really have very little ability to learn isn't helping them, it's just ticking boxes for them

Assangeofficials avatar Assangeofficial Yeah You Are +2Reply

Get rid of public education. If your parents suck, you suck. Easy

I work with kids in special ed, so I'm biased, but I think we just need to spend more on education in general. Keep the funding for special ed AND get more money for advanced students! The goal of special ed is to help students either disabilities get to a point where they can learn as well as they're able and graduate as someone who can function okay in rhe adult world. It's super important, and slashing funding for them would be so detrimental to their health and happiness.

Also, please don't call them underachieving. A lot of the kids I see work very very hard on schoolwork. They're not lazy, they have learning disabilities, so school is twice as hard as them. It's like everyone in your grade is learning freshman geometry, but you're taking college calculus.

"spend massive amount on.... Students"

You haven't really ever been in the education system have you?

To fill you in. The approximate amount of money is 0

So are kids who need help worthless? I'm dyslexic And didn't do well in school because my condition was never diagnosed. So what do you say about me?

@Suspiciousauthor So are kids who need help worthless? I'm dyslexic And didn't do well in school because my condition was never...

It sounds like a bad take born out of ego. "Let's make people poorer while i get richer." type thinking.

Kionixs avatar Kionix Yeah You Are +2Reply

Not to mention the little bastards who are just classroom distractors

@Cheytuflya Not to mention the little bastards who are just classroom distractors

There's a difference between a student who's struggling in school due to personal difficulties and a student who disrupts because they can.

Dr-pens avatar Dr-pen Yeah You Are +4Reply

I am a teacher and I disagree. In my class, I tend to focus on underachievers. The overachievers know they're good and they have the needed motivation, and discipline, and are genuinely interested in learning. That is the thing that's lacking in underachievers. As a teacher is it my duty to help the underachievers to get on a higher level. That isn't to say that I will neglect the overachievers. I tend to them give harder tasks and I reward them a lot more obviously.

As any teacher, our job is to help our students to have the tools needed to learn and grow. An overachiever already has many tools that the underachiever doesn't. Most likely, they will graduate and excel in university and then find a good career. Can you say the same for an underachiever?

Boknows12s avatar Boknows12 Yeah You Are +1Reply

Is there really a shortage of STEM workers though? Universities always seek to have a considerable international reputation, as opposed to just a domestic reputation. One way of safeguarding that reputation is to offer scholarships to the best students from around the world. Also, some percentage of places are simply going to be given to the most gifted and talented individuals that apply, irregardless of where they come from. Given that India and China combined make up over a third of the world's population, no matter how high you set your standards, you're statistically quite likely to encounter candidates from those two countries.

88080808088s avatar 88080808088 Yeah You Are +1Reply

Special Ed is not about underachievers per say, but about disordered/disabled kids with special needs (some of whom may even have a good level in some domains, but still have special needs).

This is how it is rn in America

So what you're trying to say is that most or all of the attention should be poured onto the students who are already doing well and aren't struggling and just leave the struggling students to continue to struggle and fail?

vcsandfecess avatar vcsandfeces Yeah You Are +1Reply

I suppose. But I think either way, the real dividing issue is what happens at home, and the home lifestyle there. AP is kind of, its just moving numbers for funding in a lot of public schools. It depends on the teachers.

. This problem leads us to a shortage of STEM workers, forcing us to import many from out of the country.

I dont think this is an issue anywhere. Most people at this point know and believe that STEM is the biggest reason to go into college anymore. Its almost overflowing, like any 'surefire' degree, especially Tech with its VC money, that people flood into. Look at the tech hiring freezes and layoffs now. There are way too many workers, theyve devalued the field in a way because its the 'easy choice for a surefire very good six figure job'.

They bring in people from overseas because they will work for cheaper and they have the sword of deportation or whatever hanging over their head so theyre easier to manage.

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.