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)

#141

Post by flerchin » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:24 PM UTC

jeremyjh wrote: post #13

Bostonian wrote: post #5

"The current population of students we identify as academically gifted and talented is unacceptably whiter and wealthier than the actual student population of academically gifted and talented students should be." A typical IQ threshold for a gifted program is 130. The average IQ overall is 100 with standard deviation 15. For black Americans the average score on IQ tests is about 85, which explains why blacks will be…

Did you read the part where he pointed out that black/brown students are 66% less likely to be in a gifted program with the same test scores ?

He said similar, and he didn't provide the data. We surely would like to delve into why this might be happening. We can know for certain that there is no skin-color criterion in the program selection.

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

#142

Post by toyg » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:24 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #106

robonerd wrote: post #48

The gifted program helped me immensely in highschool, although the hour or two I actually spent in the gifted classroom was mostly wasted playing board games. However being in that program gave me the ability to switch classes/teachers whenever one wasn't working for me, usually because some teachers could maintain a civil classroom and other teachers let the students run wild and taught nothing. Because I was in the…

If you let students attend any classes they wanted, I bet they would sort themselves appropriately. The rowdy kids won't want to be in a classroom where everyone is quiet and the teacher is explaining the central limit theorem.

And even if that didn't happen, teachers can easily score "civility" themselves. They all know who the troublemakers are.

The problem would become, though, that nobody really wants the rowdy crowd. Even the laziest teacher would nope out, and as much as self-sacrifice is probably more prevalent in the teaching class than in the general population, there are never enough willing to self-immolate for hopeless causes. Which, in turn, is why we get the Hollywood fantasies with exactly those heroic characters: because they're actually very rare.

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

#143

Post by ouid » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:24 PM UTC

mymllnthaccount wrote: post #122

WalterBright wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never been convinced that more money for schools produces better results. Sure, that means nicer buildings, but how does that improve education? In Washington State, the teachers finally got their "fully funding" proposal enacted, which was supposed to solve all the funding problems, including big raises for teachers. There's been zero change in results.

It's so funny to me that people treat businesses and government so differently. Want results from your start up? Find someone to invest in it. Want results from a government program? Well, we need to cut out all the wasteful spending.

Cutting out wasteful spending may make your shitty schools cheaper, but it will not make them better.

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

#144

Post by temp8964 » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:25 PM UTC

mymllnthaccount wrote: post #122

WalterBright wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never been convinced that more money for schools produces better results. Sure, that means nicer buildings, but how does that improve education? In Washington State, the teachers finally got their "fully funding" proposal enacted, which was supposed to solve all the funding problems, including big raises for teachers. There's been zero change in results.

It's so funny to me that people treat businesses and government so differently. Want results from your start up? Find someone to invest in it. Want results from a government program? Well, we need to cut out all the wasteful spending.

Of course businesses and government programs are different.

If a business is not doing well, it will be defeated and shut down. If a government program is not doing well, it usually asks for more money.

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

#145

Post by deeviant » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:25 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #104

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 never been convinced that more money for schools produces better results. Sure, that means nicer buildings, but how does that improve education? In Washington State, the teachers finally got their "fully funding" proposal enacted, which was supposed to solve all the funding problems, including big raises for teachers. There's been zero change in results.

It's fair to say more money doesn't necessarily result in better results, but it would be absolutely incorrect to think that endemic budgetary shortfalls don't drastically impact results.

It's like money and happiness. Money doesn't make you happy but it damn sure does eliminate a lot of barriers on the way there.

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

#146

Post by mynegation » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:25 PM UTC

cglong wrote: post #108

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…

As an American, how is this problem avoided in other countries?

Schools are funded by a State or Federation member (eg provinces and territories in Canada). Gifted programs just exist. In that sense - yes - rich areas subsidize less fortunate areas.

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

#147

Post by jdminhbg » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:25 PM UTC

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…

> 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.

This is widely believed but no longer true. Federal and state funding have eclipsed local funding[0], and those funds are highly progressive. As a result, the highest-spending per capita schools are a mix of wealthy suburbs and failing urban districts. See this map[1] for examples, like the Philadelphia suburb of Lower Merion and the NJ city of Camden.

0: https://www.publicschoolreview.com/blog/an-overview-of-the-f... 1: https://www.aaastateofplay.com/school-districts-ranked-by-th...

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

#148

Post by eej71 » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:25 PM UTC

readthenotes1 wrote: post #79

eej71 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The conflation is a very recent intellectual phenomena.

Why intellectual? It seems more political to me (both in the sense of wanting to change policy and wanting to acquire power)

Certainly true - but the advocacy of the philosophical distinction and its promotion originates from various intellectuals. I wish it would go back to where it came from, but I see that we may be stuck with it for quite a while.

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

#149

Post by mulmen » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:25 PM UTC

mymllnthaccount wrote: post #122

WalterBright wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never been convinced that more money for schools produces better results. Sure, that means nicer buildings, but how does that improve education? In Washington State, the teachers finally got their "fully funding" proposal enacted, which was supposed to solve all the funding problems, including big raises for teachers. There's been zero change in results.

It's so funny to me that people treat businesses and government so differently. Want results from your start up? Find someone to invest in it. Want results from a government program? Well, we need to cut out all the wasteful spending.

It alarms me that anyone treats them the same. Government programs are a last resort to correct market failures. They’re completely different entities with different goals and structures.

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

#150

Post by UncleMeat » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:25 PM UTC

throwaway81348 wrote: post #60

Robotbeat wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> with similar test scores > with similar test scores > WITH SIMILAR TEST SCORES

Your point?

Presumably test scores are a not terrible proxy for qualification. So if black and hispanic students of similar qualification are not being admitted into these programs, then the programs are not actually equitably enrolling people.