Live data from Hacker News

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

teachforamerica.org

201–210 of 922 posts

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

#201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Equity of opportunity is acceptable. Equity of outcome is a bullshit goal.

Equality of outcome is not the goal of equity. That’s a straw man argument created by its detractors. People point out disparities as evidence that there aren’t equal opportunities in society. The conservative position is simply to assert that equality of opportunity exists cuz America, and if you question that you are a communist who just wants everyone to be the same.

> People point out disparities as evidence that there aren’t equal opportunities

That’s a very low bar if you take population level disparities and assume it’s a lack of equity causing this. You’re talking about having a deep understanding of incredibly complex systems layered on top of one another.

Equality of opportunity is never possible. We’re all born with different genetics. Anything less is just arbitrary line drawing as to what’s ok and what isn’t (ie tribalism).

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

#202
Probably late posting here but going to post here to maybe offer some understanding to why it is people support policies like this. For the record, I'm not personally for it but there is a method to the madness. I'm black, take that for what it is.

"unacceptably white" is probably the most triggering thing in here but it actually represents the core of this conflict. The people trying to eliminate gifted programs are recognizing that many forms of power in society are zero sum. There are plenty of ways to get a great education but there is only one Harvard. Access to higher education opportunities is not only a pathway out of poverty but also to power within the institutions that hire grads.

The supporters of this form of affirmative action recognize that in a system where black/latino/indigenous students have structural disadvantages (poverty, prejudice, health, etc) but also operates as a pure meritocracy leads to a system where their racial group possesses disproportionately less power vs their population. Less kids in these groups in gifted programs means less of these kids going to top universities and on to top positions in government and business.

Many of you may see this as tribal or even perpetuating divides on race. But I'd respond that you fundamentally are underestimating how much marginalized communities distrust communities outside of their own. I'll use the black community because I'm a member of it. There is very little trust (myself included) that the white individuals who attend these programs and (hopefully) go on to succeed in higher education will use their influence for the benefit of blacks. I don't believe that because I think white people are racist, just self interested (like most people). That thinking extends to other groups like east and south Asians.

Personally my views on this are not to eliminate gifted programs, I benefited from one myself and know how important they are. Ideally we'd do what many others here suggested and just build more programs. If there is this much of a fight about it obviously there is a lot of demand for schools where Algebra I is taught in the 8th grade. So let's make more of those. That won't solve the issue at the college level though. There is a reason there are not 50 Harvards and its because the access/power/influence that degree offers is zero sum. Until we figure out a way to ration out that power in a way that people think is fair we're going to see constant contention over it.

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

#203

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…

I've taken a close look at the numbers for individual schools in my tri-state area, (NY, NJ, PA) and from my estimate it seems that lower performing schools far and away have the highest per student budgets.

In my city, the worst schools tend to pay a good 20% better than the best ones, for teachers. They get lots of federal and state aid.

People still usually prefer not to work at them, if they have options, because the work environment is terrible.

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

#205
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> teach all students at the level that would have been taught only to gifted students before? You just can't do that, no matter how much you want it. Some teachers are better than others, they can't all be elite. The teachers union wouldn't let you sack all the mediocre teachers, and even if you somehow could fire them, where would all the new elite teachers to replace the mediocre ones come from? If you just sacked…

Who needs a better teacher? The gifted student or the remedial student?

Gifted students (at least up to middle school) don't need special teachers (an 8th grade math teacher could teach gifted 6th graders), they just need challenging material and peers to keep them motivated and study with.

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

#206
post #49

> 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.

>Seems like the obvious outcome would be a lot more students who struggle, necessitating a slower track for them.

That is not obvious to me. It is a known psychological phenomenon that children will meet external expectations, high or low. In sports it's commonly referred to as playing up or down to your opponent. Other countries have much higher standards and have not seen an explosion in children struggling. What is most likely to happen is... nothing. The percentage of kids exceeding and struggling will stay largely the same.

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

#207
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…

It's a hard topic, and it certainly is not made easier by repeating old cliches that has been proven false repeatedly. Throwing money at bad schools does not make them good. There are plenty of terrible schools spending as much money as the best ones, with no results. It's not a money question - at least not alone.

Yes, there are correlation between academic success and living in a rich neighborhood. Because yes, rich successful people often pass on their success to their children. But it's not solved by just dumping money on poor schools and hoping that would solve everything. It has been tried. Unions love it. Kids don't get any better. In fact, the whole "structural inequality" thing was roped in to explain this phenomenon - why tons of money are being spent with no observable result? Oh, it must be the invisible and immeasurable "structural inequality"! Which means we should shut down the gifted programs (so rare students that manage to overcome the awfulness of their schools have no recourse now), introduce race-based school policies and let students that barely can (and sometimes can't) read graduate. That surely will make them successful.

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

#208
post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was in one of these programs in middle and high school (1985-1990). My experience was that only a very small subset were selected to be tested. Most of the "gifted" students were born to parents who knew how to advocate for them and get them tested. (Mostly white, mostly upper middle class, many children of teachers.) I am certain that if every student had been tested, the composition of the gifted classes would ha…

Well, I was a dirt poor child of a single Puerto Rican mom in eastern Kentucky and I was accepted in gifted education the first year I went to public schools (which was the first year it was offered--the reason I went.) But to your point, I was not able to take algebra until 9th grade due to reasons that felt a bit discriminatory as you'd described, but my mother was a maniac and no one liked her, so hard to say if t…

There are always individual cases that work out. Even in systems with extreme oppression, members of oppressed groups succeed. But it is still a problem if there is a large and observable statistical disparity between groups for no compelling reason.

Consider a toy admissions criteria where students go through the same process as today but students with black hair have to also win a game of rock paper scissors. There will surely be a large number of kids with black hair who are admitted and succeed. But the system would be plainly unfair and deserve to be fixed, despite many individual students with black hair being able to say "well I was admitted."

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

#209
post #130
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…

> I had to pass essentially an IQ test to get placed into those classes. I don't see why race has anything to do with it. Simply put, we don't know how to make objective IQ tests yet. The questions in IQ tests tend to bake in a bunch of cultural assumptions, often in ways you don't expect. So the test measures a combination of IQ, and affinity with a specific cultural background. First, let me be clear about this: Th…

Any further reading recommendations? It's unclear why the cultural example of baking and sharing food would cause significant differences in test results but that's picking at an example. Were the six other questions also stereotypical of white middle class families? I imagine they were more abstract (lacking cultural context?). Would the solution here be to remove cultural context, or have culturally tailored exams? It would be interesting to take IQ tests from other countries and compare results.

I imagine other factors such as home life, economic status, and cultural emphasis on education would be much, much stronger predictors on IQ test performance.

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

#210
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…

> 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…

Knowing nothing about this topic other than hearsay and the opinions of my elderly parents… both of them teachers in public high schools…

Do these per-pupil funding numbers have any meaning when your home and community are broken and one or both of your parents is an addict or incarcerated? Because it seems to me we’ve been acting with intent as a society to keep the families, homes, and communities of everyone not white and already wealthy a complete and utter shambles.

How can we expect decent, equitable outcomes given that the home life of significant percentages of students is essentially a path right to prison?

Post reply on HN