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

171–180 of 922 posts

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

#171

Post by 908B64B197 »

jl6 wrote: post #120
908B64B197 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The veneer is quite thin.

There are even more radical proposals [0] they are trying to introduce in High School classes.

It's hard not to see the real agenda past the shallow arguments against gifted programs [1]. This was an enlightening read to say the least.

[0] https://criticallyconsciouscomputing.org/

[1] https://unherd.com/2022/02/anti-racism-betrays-asian-student...

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

#172

Post by singlow »

toyg wrote: post #114
mrexroad wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is what Texas does. Not 100 percent, but a majority of tax dollars for schools are paid to the state and redistributed to the districts based on attendance/enrollment. Rich areas might be able to use extra funds/donations for capital expenditures like fancier buildings or stadiums, but the tax money at largely redistributed.

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

#173

Post by robonerd »

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.

I think this works well for college, but at the highschool level you have the complicating factor of parents being involved in the decision making. How would you account for the parents who think their little monster is a perfect angel and place their kid in the best classrooms, despite his desire and intention to misbehave?

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

#174

Post by toyg »

daenz wrote: post #56
jeremyjh wrote: post #18

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.

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?

Probably more like black teachers with black students are more likely to exist in poor areas where identifying "giftedness" is lower on the list of priorities.

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

#175

Post by MockObject »

nlittlepoole wrote: post #123
zmgsabst wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I figure there's little chance of finding a compromise if I can't even comprehend their viewpoint. I understand it just fine, but there’s a fundamental disagreement, in that I don’t support racism nor view people in terms of “racial tribes” — while proponents of equity do. That’s the frame they’re working from when they say denying an Asian student a place at Harvard in favor of a less qualified black applicant is…

They aren't saying that. They are recognizing that many forms of power in society are zero sum. There are plenty of ways to get a great education but only one Harvard and a limited amount of power to be distributed via an institution like Harvard. You and many like you believe that access to these institutions should be gatekeeped via a meritocracy. The supporters of this form of affirmative action recognize that in…

> There are plenty of ways to get a great education but only one Harvard

We had only one Harvard when the country's population was quite a bit smaller. Perhaps, instead of the zero-sum struggle for Harvard attendance, we should be working to create new Harvards. We have the oversupply of academics.

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

#177

Post by colinmhayes »

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.

The most important thing money can buy is more teachers. I went to chicago public schools. In my elementary school each class had 32+ students and 1 teacher. I was accepted to a gifted high school which had very successful fundraising campaigns. That allowed the school to hire extra teachers, lowering the class sizes to ~25. Meanwhile private schools have class sizes < 20. It makes a huge difference. When there are 32 kids in a class there is 0 individual attention.

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

#178

Post by UncleMeat »

chernevik wrote: post #125
UncleMeat wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the systems which identify students and enable them to meet the admissions requirements are massively unequal. I'll give an example. I attended a gifted program starting in 3rd grade. I went to an elementary school for 1st and 2nd grade that was almost entirely white with some asian kids. Part of the mechanism for selecting students for the gifted program was a letter from the student's counselor, teacher, an…

The answer would be to improve the development of those students who are underdeveloped -- not change criteria for the identification of potential. This is, of course, far more complicated, and involves difficult problems. Far easier to sweep it all under the rug by calling attention to qualifications "unacceptable".

In my personal experience agitating for change in this space, it is precisely the same people who resist change in admissions criteria and who resist change in grants for equitable early development resources.

And in the example I listed for early GT admissions, there was no need for developing "underdeveloped" students. They were already developed. They just had systems that didn't enable them to get through the gate to the GT program.

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

#179

Post by genedan »

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.

Where I grew up in Texas, this was called the Robinhood Plan where rich districts sent money to poor ones:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood_plan

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

#180

Post by brianwawok »

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…

The property tax leading to funding differences is part of the puzzle, but not all of the puzzle. In my random neck of the world we have roughly 4 school districts.

1) Public school 1. Covers most of the black and brown students of the area.

2) Public school 2. Covers most of the lower to middle class white students of the area.

3) Public school 3. Covers most of the higher class white students, especially families of a local high ranking private college.

4) Various private schools.

Options 1-2-3 have pretty much open enrollment, you can send your kid to any of them even if they are out of district, it just means you need to drive them (they won't qualify for bussing service).

If you look at public school 1, 2, and 3 - they have near identical spending per pupil. yes property taxes differ a little, but at the end of the day they are spending the same $ per pupil. However the test scores are vastly different. Test scores highly corelate with the % of students receiving free lunch, a fairly accurate proxy for poverty. The more kids in poverty, the worse test scores.

But because of this, many high achieving students that have money, are sent to option 4. Since this is the best education, if you can choose anything - you do this.

The next bucket of high achieving but wanting to save money send their kids to public school 3. It's reguarded as a "very good" free education. But this means the best kids are pulled out of the disticts for schools 1 and 2.

Schools 1 and 2 mostly just the people who are "left" in the district, without the inclination or money to go to choise 3 or 4.

Post reply on HN