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)

#181

Post by wbsss4412 » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:29 PM UTC

rajin444 wrote: post #165

wbsss4412 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think your point comes down to whether or not you believe we’re all blank slates. If yes, then what you says makes sense. If no, then we would expect ability to somewhat dictate socioeconomic status.

Ability does affect socioeconomic status, I’m not disputing that.

The question in a school context, though, is whether socioeconomic status for children determines ability.

As I stated in my original list, what I observed was that gifted classes were filled with children from high social status backgrounds. They certainly didn’t create the conditions for their socioeconomic status, their inherited it.

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

#182

Post by xvedejas » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:29 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.

We can treat them the same: hold someone accountable when their project over-spends and under-delivers. Maybe even fire them. It would happen naturally in successful companies, but (at least in the US) there's often no accountability in government for setting money on fire.

https://pedestrianobservations.com/2021/08/07/why-its-import...

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

#183

Post by pvg » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:29 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?

Not necessarily a universal recipe for avoiding this problem but public education standards, curricula, funding, etc tends to be more centralized at a national level in many countries. It's much more decentralized in the US with many more points of friction for competing interests.

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

#184

Post by scarmig » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:29 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.

Well, take something like Google: considering its size and amount of money it invests into R&D, you'd expect it to generate more product and technological innovation than it has. It's a version of the resource curse: when you have so much money you don't know what to do with it all, there are no real competitive pressures and corporate politics and bureaucracy take over.

Schools need more funding, but less on faddish well-paid DEI officers who focus their time on axing algebra because it's too hard, and more on providing healthy school lunches, well ventilated and comfortable environments to work in, and a variety of classes tailored to students' individual needs.

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

#185

Post by bena » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:29 PM UTC

mnw21cam wrote: post #92

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.

Forgive me if this seems all too simple to me. The solution is very clearly stop doing that then . There's a lot of value in having a gifted track in schooling. Throwing that away because it is currently inaccurate at identifying students that are best suited to it is a stupid idea. Make it accurate at identifying the students that are best suited to it instead.

The problem, as always, is people.

You can't self-select to be evaluated. Your parents can advocate, but they ultimately don't decide either. Although I think they can turn down the evaluation, I'm unclear on that though.

The first hurdle is getting the teacher to not only recognize that the child may be gifted, but to make the recommendation to administration. Then it is administration who ultimately makes the call on whether or not to evaluate the kid.

And teachers are more likely to recommend white students than black students.

And this may not even be something they're consciously aware of doing. Because a lot of this is based on the teachers' perceptions of students. If you have a good rapport with a student, you're more likely to recommend them to be evaluated. If you are constantly butting heads with a kid, or if the kid is just quietly doing their work, you're not going to be inclined to recommend them. Regardless of how well they are doing in class.

I was not evaluated until partway through my freshman year of high school and the only reason I was was because the teacher who ran the Quiz Bowl team got everyone who made it on the team who wasn't already in the gifted program evaluated.

Otherwise, I probably would not have been evaluated at all.

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

#186

Post by guelo » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:29 PM UTC

I have read so many of these types of arguments but why is it so hard to find the pro argument? Where are the proponent's rebuttals and counterarguments?

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

#187

Post by bgandrew » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:29 PM UTC

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

No post body was provided.

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

#188

Post by wongarsu » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:29 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.

One thing that clearly provides better results are smaller class sizes. That requires having enough teachers and enough rooms, both of which cost money.

Just spending a lot of money doesn't guarantee good results, just like some companies manage to spend a lot of money doing very little. But not having enough money is a great way to make it very difficult to achieve good results.

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

#189

Post by hintymad » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:30 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…

> but raising the difficulty of every class to what the most advanced student is capable of is not the answer

The most advanced students will find one way or another to educate themselves. I think our school systems should focus on the middle: the students who could realize their full potential if they are sufficiently challenged. They are the group that do not always get STEM naturally but can eventually get it if pushed enough with the right material and exercises. Watering down curriculum means the students in the middle would lose the chance to truly grow, or their parents resort to tutoring and we get back to the discussion of how social-economic status matters in education.

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

#190

Post by temp8964 » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:30 PM UTC

300bps wrote: post #161

car_analogy wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 is an oft repeated myth. In addition to property taxes, school funding is supplemented by state and federal budgets…

That $6,000 per student figure is from 1998 according to the link you provided. Today, the crappy school district near me pays $15,900 per student and the good school district near me pays $19,800 per student.

If you give a business $15,900 per student ($1.59million per 100 students), they can run much better than most public schools, especially than those public schools in crappy school districts.