Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

teachforamerica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 922 posts

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

#51

Post by jmyeet »

There are so many topics that are hard to talk about nowadays without getting into politics but politics and structural inequality are at the core of this.

For the benefit of non-US readers, know that how the US funds public education (K-12) is rather unique. It's done through property taxes essentially. Depending on your state and city your property taxes can vary a lot with the same value property.

But what this means is the wealthier localities have more tax revenue and thus better schools. This can be a vicious cycle of improving property values by having better schools and thus generating more tax revenue and so on. I say "vicious" because it is absolutely exclusionary to lower-income people who cannot possibly afford to live in these areas. And that's by design.

Twenty years ago Bush (43) passed the No Child Left Behind Act, which many dubbed the No Child Gets Ahead Act. A lot of this was also in the name of "equity".

I know people who send their children to public schools in NYC. NYC seems to be in the mood to eliminate these "gifted" programs because of "equity" too. The result? Those who can afford to send their children to private schools will. For those who are left, there are no more gifted programs.

How does that help anyone?

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

#52

Post by superb-owl »

I've never understood this approach of "eliminating gifted programs" due to equity concerns. Why not just implement something along the lines of affirmative action policies - make sure the demographics gifted programs roughly match the demographics of the school district?

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

#53

Post by mikece »

formerly_proven wrote: post #30
mikece wrote: post #20

Eliminating accelerated or gifted programs doesn't create equality any more than mandating a uniform maximum height will stop people from growing past 2 meters in height. All it does it rob society at large from the possibility of the exceptionally able from realizing their potential sooner. If we're willing, as a body politic, to eschew the possibility of an exceptional learner from discovering things like the cure…

Equity != Equality. Equity is semantically closer to equality of outcome than equality (of conditions/opportunities).

I will agree 100% that words and terms are being thrown around without adequate or agreed upon definition of terms. Without an agreement on the definition of the words being used it's pretty much impossible to have a cogent exchange of ideas.

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

#54

Post by duxup »

>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.

Just "make" everyone qualified / good at algebra?

I feel like that glosses over the ALL the challenges with education ...

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

#55

Post by cjbgkagh »

eej71 wrote: post #27
acchow wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why can't we just admit it and quit trying to make people who are unique the same? America keeps conflating equity for equality.

The conflation is a very recent intellectual phenomena.

I think it is part of an intentional replacement, the conflation is only temporary in order to muddy the waters and diminish opposition.

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

#56

Post by daenz »

jeremyjh wrote: post #18
derac wrote: 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.

I dug up the study, in case anyone is interested https://cdn.vanderbilt.edu/vu-news/files/20190417222934/Gris...

What's interesting that is not mentioned is page 15: a black student with a black teacher is still much less likely to be identified as gifted. even less than a white student with a non-white teacher. internalized racism?

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

#57

Post by chernevik »

"eighth grade Algebra I classes and gifted education programs that disproportionately exclude Black and brown children"

The absence of "Black and brown children" doesn't mean they were _excluded_, it means they weren't _selected_, or never applied in the first place.

If they were deliberately not selected because of their race, that's wrong and should be fixed pronto. And what are the odds of that? If they were not selected because they didn't meet the qualifications, well, that isn't the fault of the gifted program.

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

#58

Post by fnordpiglet »

jeremyjh wrote: post #31
chernevik wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Apparently race given the assertion of similar test scores

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

#59

Post by charlieyu1 »

jeremyjh wrote: post #18
derac wrote: 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.

How conveniently that the writer omits Asians.

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

#60

Post by throwaway81348 »

Robotbeat wrote: post #38
chernevik wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Your point?
Post reply on HN