The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted education programs (2021) • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by MockObject » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:18 PM UTC

CoastalCoder wrote: post #47

zmgsabst wrote: post #6

Eliminating “gifted” programs because they offend the racial sensibilities of the managerial class is a blatant exercise in privilege and ladder-pulling. I think it’s grotesque how many privileged people are happily destroying the lives of others (often, those they pretend to care about) so they don’t have to think critically about or be uncomfortable thinking about race. Seattle is the epitome of “privileged White l…

I'm pretty socially conservative, and the equality-of-outcome mindset is very unintuitive for me. It's very tempting (edit: for me ) to lazily rest on the caricature, "I don't care how many people I hurt, as long as I can help just one!" Despite that, or maybe because of that, I make a conscious effort to understand where the other side is coming from. I figure there's little chance of finding a compromise if I can't…

Equality of outcome simply isn't a rational value, because it can be achieved by bringing down the achievers, as well as bringing up the disadvantaged. When people call for that, they're most charitably engaging in very imprecise thinking.

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

#112

Post by mnw21cam » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:19 PM UTC

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…

In my opinion the worst enemy of an intelligent student is boredom. Boredom causes underachievement and disillusionment. One reason to keep a gifted programme at school is to give intelligent students something to do that is actually interesting.

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

#113

Post by tejohnso » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:19 PM UTC

chernevik wrote: post #57

"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 s…

> If they were not selected because they didn't meet the qualifications, well, that isn't the fault of the gifted program.

But it could be the fault of the government, the school administration, and an entire culture of systemic racism.

And so there could be several problems to address.

Does removing the gifted program solve any of the problems? No. Does it make some people feel as though they're doing good by equalizing everything? Yes.

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

#114

Post by toyg » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:19 PM UTC

mrexroad wrote: post #86

jmyeet wrote: post #51

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 me…

I’ve always quipped that the idea that the highest property taxes fund the poorest areas, and vice-versa. While not feasible, the current situation is absurd.

> While not feasible

Well, that's effectively what happens in European systems, where schooling is basically run entirely by the State and funding is mostly distributed on a per-pupil basis - higher-income taxpayers effectively subsidize poorer areas. So it is, in fact, feasible.

But Americans would probably call that illiberal or something.

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

#115

Post by wbsss4412 » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:20 PM UTC

jaywalk wrote: post #49

whatshisface wrote: post #3

> 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…

So what happens when we decide "everyone is gifted" and teach all students at the level that would have been taught only to gifted students before? Seems like the obvious outcome would be a lot more students who struggle, necessitating a slower track for them. So instead of regular and gifted classes, you have regular and "non-gifted" (for lack of a better term) classes. This is why equity is a bullshit goal.

Equity isn’t a bullshit goal.

As is typical, the concept get confused because one assumes that gifted programs correctly track students based primarily on ability, whereas in my personal experience and looking at the data, they primarily track students based on socioeconomic status.

It’s not about denying that some students have the ability to excel in subjects in comparison to their peers. The question is whether or not the current system actually achieves it’s stated goals.

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

#116

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:20 PM UTC

At my high school, they were able to get funding for advanced program (for above average students) by arguing that there was already funding for programs for students who were struggling (below average students). That is, that is was unfair that one group of students were having their special educational needs met, but that another group wasn't. They succeeded and the program was very successful. The result was three levels for most subjects which students could choose based on their goals and abilities. They were also able to keep the bar for the advanced classes high so students who enrolled but found them too challenging would soon drop down a level -- as most preferred a high grade in middle level class then a mediocre or low grade in a high level class. I took classes at all three levels as I was strong in math and science but less so in the humanities, for example. I thought it worked great.

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

#117

Post by tonguez » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:20 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #3

> 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…

“…it is unacceptable to have eighth grade Algebra I classes and gifted education programs that disproportionately exclude Black and brown children.”

a definition of exclude is “deny (someone) access to or bar (someone) from a place, group, or privilege.”

no one is barring access to these classes on the basis race. can you even imagine that? “sorry, you’re not allowed to take this class; you’re black.” it’s like everyone who writes this lives in their mom’s basement and has never gone outside and thinks if they just make the boring and tired declaration that non-black/non-brown people are evil/racist, that it absolves them of every other sin they commit, like not caring about homeless people or the fact that everything they own is made by chinese children. in reality it accomplishes nothing except complacency and it helps the people raping the world continue their work of exploiting everyone.

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

#118

Post by DeathArrow » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:20 PM UTC

So leftist are producing inclusivity and equity by forcing everyone stay at the lowest common denominator. Instead of trying to help disadvantaged people climb the stair, they are breaking the stair to be sure everyone remains down.

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

#119

Post by whatshisface » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:21 PM UTC

b112 wrote: post #84

whatshisface wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You used 'many' in your second part, which is the same 'not only'.

Qualitatively yes, but not quantitatively.

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

#120

Post by jl6 » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:21 PM UTC

908B64B197 wrote: post #83

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…

> Gifted programs are "unacceptably white". You are only scratching the surface here. Some places had a hard time "proving" their gifted programs were "too white" so they started using the term "white and white-adjacent" to include Asian kids as well (often from impoverished background but that's another issue) in these stats [0]. > I don't see why race has anything to do with it. Buckle up. The SF school district is…

“Math is racist” is not what is being claimed in link #2. It’s math instruction that they claim to be racist. I have no idea if this is true but it’s at least plausible.