Live data from Hacker News

The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted education programs (2021)

teachforamerica.org

31–40 of 922 posts

Re: The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted education programs (2021)

#31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just read what he wrote? > Black students are 66% less likely to be identified as gifted compared to white students with similar test scores. Black, Latinx, and Native American students are far less likely to attend a school that even offers a gifted program.

How is that an answer? If someone isn't meeting the qualifications they aren't in. What's "unacceptable" about that?

Are there qualifications other than test scores?

Re: The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted education programs (2021)

#32

I’m not aware of studies showing that gifted programs have a positive impact on student performance. My hunch is that the typical school district is looking for a palatable excuse to reduce funding needs.

I would actually say that my gifted classes probably brought my grades down, at least in those same years.

But at the same time, they gave me a broader education and I learned more than I would have otherwise.

At my elementary school, you were taken out of normal classes 1 day per week. You still had to do all the work from that day, but you didn't actually attend those sessions for those classes. Instead, you spent the whole day in a different classroom that was solely for "gifted" students.

Of course, this meant that it really was only the top students that could handle it.

Prior to being tested and accepted into Gifted, I was a pretty constant disruption in my normal classes. I would finish all the work in class, even the stuff that everyone else had to take home because it took them so long. That left me constantly bored, and clued them in that I needed more.

TBH, I probably would have said I preferred being given a book and let sit in a corner and learned or just read fiction. But instead I was forced to be social and learn about things not usually taught in school, such as puzzle solving. I'm still very much an introvert, but I have to wonder how much more introverted I'd be if it weren't for that? Perhaps cripplingly so.

I'm a huge fan of gifted classes for obvious reasons, but not at the expense of other students. If there isn't enough budget to teach everyone to a basic level, gifted classes are not a great idea.

In fact, we should probably restructure everything so that everyone who isn't being taught at their full potential can learn more in school. I'm sure there were students around me that were almost in my same situation, but they weren't in Gifted. They were probably also bored and could have been both educated and entertained during those times, if we had the programs for it.

Re: The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted education programs (2021)

#33
post #11

Gifted programs are "unacceptably white". WTF does that mean? I had to pass essentially an IQ test to get placed into those classes. For me, it made a big difference in being engaged in schoolwork when every class consisted of reiterating content for days which I had mastered in minutes. Edit: I removed "I don't see what race has to do with it." I do see how race can affect this when the gatekeeper is a teacher with…

Just read what he wrote? > Black students are 66% less likely to be identified as gifted compared to white students with similar test scores. Black, Latinx, and Native American students are far less likely to attend a school that even offers a gifted program.

Are they less likely to be identified because they they are treated differently or because they go to schools that don’t offer those programs?

Re: The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted education programs (2021)

#34
>I agree that it is unacceptable to have eighth grade Algebra I classes and gifted education programs that disproportionately exclude Black and brown children. But if equity is the goal, we should be mandating that every eighth grader takes Algebra I—and then structure the entire pre-K to seventh grade student experience to ensure this is a legitimate possibility for every child. Since when does equity mean everyone gets nothing?

I think this is the key. Obviously eliminating gifted programs and just tossing those resources into the wind is bad. But if instead we eliminated gifted programs, shifting those resources into remedial programs and then made the normal classes more difficult that seems like a solution that would satisfy almost everyone.

Re: The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted education programs (2021)

#35
Gifted programs are extremely important and the width of American gifted programs is a virtue. Canada has a much higher standard for gifted, and in Ontario we generally admit roughly the top 1% of students (many American programs cater to the top 10%).

There a number of large benefits to gifted, not the least of which is it changes the character of a program/school. If you are surrounded by bright students with nerdy academic interests it's suddenly acceptable to nerd out on things. This single fact may be more valuable to the development of the student than the entire program itself. Outside of gifted, schools have substantial challenges with creating environments where academic excellence is encouraged and rewarded not only by the schools grading system but also by social behaviour of peers. While bullying has gone down, and acceptability of geeky interests have improved in the past 30 years there is still nothing close to a gifted program from encouraging and accepting academic excellence.

As someone who just barely missed the gifted cutoff, my schooling was much too easy and I basically never had to study for tests or exams. I ended up developing poor academic habits that ultimately hurt me when the difficulty got hard enough that intellectual horsepower needed to be combined with hard work. I think being challenged early and often would have changed this behaviour substantially. Even creating an environment where I wanted to be around other students enough to participate in more extra-curriculars could have helped. I worry that we are going to create a lot of bright but unmotivated students by offering years of programs that are too easy for them. There are consequences far beyond just having these students occasionally act out out of boredom and I think it's a very bad idea to create an educational culture that suggests bright people should be lazy. This is ultimately what the removal of gifted programs do because classroom teachers generally aren't given adequate prep time or other resources to properly offer enrichment. I've even known some principals who encouraged their teachers to not offer enrichment as it created problems in later grades when other teachers didn't offer similar enrichment and parents expected it.

Re: The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted education programs (2021)

#36
post #12
post #7

Quoted post unavailable.

There's usually gifted programs in poor schools as well. This isn't a private vs public education thing. It's more about keeping bright students stimulated and not bored to tears and have their potential stunted.

From the article.

"Black students are 66% less likely to be identified as gifted compared to white students with similar test scores. Black, Latinx, and Native American students are far less likely to attend a school that even offers a gifted program. These are just some of the issues with which the gifted education field must grapple. "

Re: The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted education programs (2021)

#37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just read what he wrote? > Black students are 66% less likely to be identified as gifted compared to white students with similar test scores. Black, Latinx, and Native American students are far less likely to attend a school that even offers a gifted program.

How is that an answer? If someone isn't meeting the qualifications they aren't in. What's "unacceptable" about that?

> compared to white students with similar test scores

Re: The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted education programs (2021)

#38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just read what he wrote? > Black students are 66% less likely to be identified as gifted compared to white students with similar test scores. Black, Latinx, and Native American students are far less likely to attend a school that even offers a gifted program.

How is that an answer? If someone isn't meeting the qualifications they aren't in. What's "unacceptable" about that?

> with similar test scores

> with similar test scores

> WITH SIMILAR TEST SCORES

Re: The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted education programs (2021)

#39
post #11

Gifted programs are "unacceptably white". WTF does that mean? I had to pass essentially an IQ test to get placed into those classes. For me, it made a big difference in being engaged in schoolwork when every class consisted of reiterating content for days which I had mastered in minutes. Edit: I removed "I don't see what race has to do with it." I do see how race can affect this when the gatekeeper is a teacher with…

Just read what he wrote? > Black students are 66% less likely to be identified as gifted compared to white students with similar test scores. Black, Latinx, and Native American students are far less likely to attend a school that even offers a gifted program.

Sounds like the problem might be with those who are selected to identify the "gifted" students. I am less interested in racial correlations to being identified as "gifted" and more interested in attributes such as whether the student is from a two-parent household, whether they are considered poor, whether they attend a local school or are transported to one outside of their neighborhood, etc. I suspect that we lose out on identifying many gifted children because issues at home and mere survival interfere with their ability to grow and develop academically.

Re: The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted education programs (2021)

#40
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just read what he wrote? > Black students are 66% less likely to be identified as gifted compared to white students with similar test scores. Black, Latinx, and Native American students are far less likely to attend a school that even offers a gifted program.

Unacceptably white is still a horrible way to phrase this. Is the NBA unacceptably black? Why don't we remove basketball courts from inner cities and cut off black kid's feet /s eye roll BTW, I realize he is arguing for the opposite of this. edit: If you think I am racist or something let me spell it out as I did in another comment: It is not unacceptable when white children have opportunities. It is unacceptable whe…

That is a bad analogy because the NBA is not the only accessible path to a stable middle class life while school, for many people, is.
Post reply on HN