New York City to Phase Out Its Gifted and Talented Program • Hacker News Board

Re: New York City to Phase Out Its Gifted and Talented Program

#41

Post by raxxorrax » Fri, Oct 08, 2021, 12:50 PM UTC

0xB31B1B wrote: post #18

I am generally quite liberal but I strongly disagree with he current strain of progressive education reform. There are inherent differences within the capabilities of students, we can detect these early, and we should use them to provide students with appropriate challenges. Our education system should provide avenues for top students to excel, ad hopefully these top students become the people who create businesses o…

This seems to be a "present" of an older generation that fundamentally didn't put in any effort to understand their successors. With exception to the newest generation that now believes that racism is everywhere.

That said, I think logistics of education today can supply almost everyone with a high quality education anyway and the role to connect people moves from universities to other places. So less elite and more broad high quality education wouldn't hold anyone back and is a better approach.

Re: New York City to Phase Out Its Gifted and Talented Program

#42

Post by say_it_as_it_is » Fri, Oct 08, 2021, 12:50 PM UTC

Public schools in NYC rush to the lowest common denominator to address cries of racial inequity. This only takes away futures for children who would have had any future because they weren't among the general population of future convicts or minimum wage earners. No one is better for policies focused on racial parity when the bar is vastly lower because of it.

Re: New York City to Phase Out Its Gifted and Talented Program

#43

Post by prepend » Fri, Oct 08, 2021, 12:50 PM UTC

jshaqaw wrote: post #17

I am all for supportive programs for really smart kids. FWIW my kids go to NYC public schools. We did not go with gifted and talented because we didn't really like the structure of the program. If the city ends up providing REAL enrichment for gifted kids past 3rd grade it will be a net gain for everyone. It is pretty ridiculous how pervasive test prep is for pre-school age kids to get them into the G&T program.

I know lots of parents who “chose not to go with it” when their kids aren’t selected for gifted and talented.

There are many flaws in gifted programs and they aren’t perfect. But they do have advantages like more child autonomy, more allowances for child-directed study, and more encouragement of curiosity.

Not all children have academic curiosity and so gifted isn’t a good fit for everyone.

But for parents who want their kids to achieve academically, I can’t imagine turning down gifted for “regular.”

And not saying this is you, but when I lived in Manhattan I would hear arguments about improving all classes instead of just gifted and the parents were sending their kids to private school.

Public school is rough, but taking away paths out for kids who want to be in school, but whose parents can’t afford private school seems like punishing those gifted students.

Re: New York City to Phase Out Its Gifted and Talented Program

#44

Post by Veen » Fri, Oct 08, 2021, 12:51 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #26

refenestrator wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current stats include a ridiculously large number of Asians, and the changes are racially motivated according to the proponents' own words. It doesn't sound like the system was perfect, I'm all for reform that helps everyone. Hurting Asians to create equality isn't it.

Equality, to the priviledged, looks like persecution. That many Asian kids got a golden ticket, and now won't get a golden ticket, seems like not such a problem to those who were denied any such chance at a golden ticket for generations.

> Equality, to the priviledged, looks like persecution.

So does persecution.

Re: New York City to Phase Out Its Gifted and Talented Program

#45

Post by barney54 » Fri, Oct 08, 2021, 12:51 PM UTC

dvdhnt wrote: post #20

Totally based on my experiences and opinion, this is because our society has very little appetite for prioritizing education and children over economics. In reality, we should have more programs like this and investing more resources in developing alternative, public paths for educating children. Public education itself is relatively young in human history. Invest in R&D. But that money would need to come from coffer…

Spending on schools in the US has dramatically increased in recent decades and that money isn’t going to for-profit schools but public schools. The US is investing in child R&D with more money. There is a good argument that the money is not well spent, but the reality is that spending is way up.

Re: New York City to Phase Out Its Gifted and Talented Program

#46

Post by superflit2 » Fri, Oct 08, 2021, 12:51 PM UTC

Bostonian wrote: post #24

Subtitle: "Students who are currently enrolled in gifted and talented classes will not be affected. But the highly selective and racially segregated program will be replaced for incoming students." The reasons can be debated, but it's a fact that on IQ tests, American blacks score about 1 standard deviation (15 points) below whites. A common threshold for a gifted program is an IQ of 130, 2SD above average. If you de…

This is a hard fact that people ignore.

People are different and they have different skills.

but but "social economic" factors? Very little compared to genetics factors. One of the studies with adopted twins ->

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602...

I can train all I want . I will never be as good as Neymar on Soccer.

Re: New York City to Phase Out Its Gifted and Talented Program

#47

Post by endisneigh » Fri, Oct 08, 2021, 12:51 PM UTC

0xB31B1B wrote: post #18

I am generally quite liberal but I strongly disagree with he current strain of progressive education reform. There are inherent differences within the capabilities of students, we can detect these early, and we should use them to provide students with appropriate challenges. Our education system should provide avenues for top students to excel, ad hopefully these top students become the people who create businesses o…

> inherent differences within the capabilities of students

citation needed. I agree students definition differ in abilities, but by and large you don't have to be super-smart to succeed in K-12.

Re: New York City to Phase Out Its Gifted and Talented Program

#48

Post by zentropia » Fri, Oct 08, 2021, 12:51 PM UTC

_hilro wrote: post #13

> But the highly selective and racially segregated program will be replaced for incoming students. Wow, using a word such as segregation, which has connotations of 'by design' sure lays bare their hand. Just to be clear, there is no segregation(of any kind) amongst the students in the program. In fact, there is no segregation at all. There's just not equal representation of the makey-uppy USA racial classifications.…

Some people don't like institutions that will enlarge racial inequality gaps.

Re: New York City to Phase Out Its Gifted and Talented Program

#49

Post by arkades » Fri, Oct 08, 2021, 12:51 PM UTC

tapoxi wrote: post #28

My brother teaches at an exam school in Boston which similarly had its requirements dropped recently, and it seems like a lot of these changes are poorly thought out and done for optics. Sure, some of the exam schools in BPS are overwhelmingly White/Asian, but the school he teaches at is mostly Black/Asian/Hispanic. While he was previously able to teach classes of bright, focused students, now they need to break up f…

This has already happened in NY.

What the NYT article omits is that the elimination of advanced classes has been preceded by a couple of decades of highly restricted availability. 15 years ago (shit I’ve gotten old), when I lived in nyc_borough, there was precisely one elementary school honors class for the entire borough. 30 spots for the entire borough. I didn’t bother to wait and see if my kid managed to get a spot, we pulled her out and stuck her in private school.

Re: New York City to Phase Out Its Gifted and Talented Program

#50

Post by mgamache » Fri, Oct 08, 2021, 12:51 PM UTC

The answer is probably "more gifted programs in low-income neighborhoods". This is of course racist against Asians (they are lumped in with white when it's convenient). They make up 43% of these schools, so whites, and POCs are underrepresented. Why are Asians doing better? Are they more intelligent, work harder, value education? Let's pretend there is no problem by just eliminating the schools. Of course, there are problems with gifted programs, but assuming that factory education will maximize all the students potential is obviously wrong. This is a pollical maneuver designed t placate a segment of voters. We need every smart mind being educated properly regardless of the circumstances of birth.