Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by delichon 249 days ago
I know what you mean about mindless aspirational slogans. "No child left behind" is logically the same as "no child gets ahead". But trying to convince the Ruby community to be nice, by the example of their founder, isn't in that category. And if Matz told me to jump off of a bridge, he has enough stored up credibility that I'd at least consider it.
2 comments
cortesoft 249 days ago
Not necessarily. Your logic only holds if you assume the "behind" refers to other children.

The statement is ambiguous. I interpret it as "no child left behind THE STANDARD FOR THEIR AGE". In that interpretation, other kids being ahead of that standard doesn't mean the other kids have to be behind the standard. Every kid could be not "left behind" the standard even if some are ahead of the standard.

Of course, NCLB has a lot of other issues, but I think the name isn't the issue.

link
gmac 249 days ago
> "No child left behind" is logically the same as "no child gets ahead"

If by both statements you mean "all children must be in exactly the same position", yes ... but that's a wilfully obtuse interpretation.

link
delichon 249 days ago
It seems to be to be literal rather than obtuse to observe that it is necessary for some children to fall behind in order for others to get ahead. The slogan on its face is a wish for equality of outcome. But it's catchier than ”no child failing to meet minimum standards”.
link
saghm 249 days ago
I'm not convinced that yours is the only literal way to read it. The question of who exactly is doing the "leaving behind" is implicit, but it always sounded to me like it was the adults, not the other children. I don't think it's any less literal to interpret it as making sure some adults linger behind with the children who are behind rather than all of them running ahead with the children who go faster. The phrase isn't "no children are behind", which would be the literal representation of what you're saying; "left behind" is a bit ambiguous, and while I think you can make the case that the ambiguity is a problem, I don't think it's nearly as clear-cut as you're saying that there's only one literal way to read it.
link
InsideOutSanta 248 days ago
Have you ever gone hiking? Did not leaving anyone behind mean that nobody could hike ahead of the rest?
link