Thomas Jefferson, the well rated high school in Northern Virginia was referenced by one speaker as an example of high performing schools. The other speaker then said that there should be Thomas Jeffersons available to every student, not just those that pass an entrance test.
This is not how the real world works. People won't hire you or keep you as an employee if you don't pass whatever criteria are in place at work.
Would you put a beginning motorcyclist who can't afford a fancy bike in a class with people who've been racing bikes for three years and call it an equal opportunity? Of course not. He'd end up breaking some bones (not necessarily only his). This is exactly what we do when we put unprepared students into classes that they aren't ready for. And the "bones" that get broken are the standards (which change for the worse in order to get those unprepared kids to pass). Edumacators drive me nuts when they make these kinds of claims.
Another fallacy in Mr. Soifer's reasoning is that he assumes there are only two choices: run a computer programming class or don't. What about running two sections? One of them can do programming and the other can be an introduction to what computers are all about and what they do, with some Scratch programming taught at the end.
I understand that some people don't have the same opportunities that others do. It sucks. But we need to focus on letting people work at their levels (they'll probably learn more that way anyhow), so that they can reach a higher level when they're ready, rather than admitting children to programs regardless of readiness, and then patting ourselves on the backs because we "solved" the problem. Lack of opportunities results in part from lack of skills, and that problem won't go away when we put kids into programs they aren't prepared for.
I understand that these people may be trying to make things better, but they just make things worse.
It's better to be honest and give unprepared kids work that is at their level and let them work at their own paces.
