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…
>This is an oft repeated myth. In addition to property taxes, school funding is supplemented by state and federal budgets, in inverse proportion to property taxes, so that racial differences in per-pupil funding are negligible: >on average, both Black and Latinx total per pupil expenditures exceed White total per pupil expenditures by $229.53 and $126.15, respectively - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2…
The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted education programs (2021)
211–220 of 922 posts
Re: The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted education programs (2021)
#212There 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.
Re: The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted education programs (2021)
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Re: The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted education programs (2021)
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)
#215I live in one of those top 100 zipcodes of USA with very small school district. It's plenty diverse racially but completely homogenous financially (i.e. pretty much everyone is rich). I have two kids just a year apart. One just barely didn't make it into gifted & talented program at grade 3, and another one definitely did, and has been in one since then. [Edit] oh and I was in gifted/advanced class myself from grade 7 on, but not here, but in Russia.
Plenty of parents pushed very hard for the kids to test into the gifted program, getting kids tutors and repeatedly testing in. There was one kid I remember who was bright as all get out but a complete asshole in social circumstances that apparently tested 3 times by his parents until he made it (2 highly focused doctors). My kid that tested in actually didn't start in it, but then about a month into 3rd grade complained that he was bored and we were able to move him in.
We've been involved with the teachers on both regular and gifted track. We - and every parent with child in gifted class - are not happy about our school sunsetting it for the district. No teachers - certainly no teachers of advanced classes - were consulted on this effort. None of them are getting any additional help in now trying to teach to all levels, and result will be (already is) a dilution of quality all around.
As with many schools everywhere, and with covid helping, there are some kids departing towards private education where your money talks and you do whatever. Where I live is increasingly unaffordable, too, so we have reduced enrollment because there are just less kids. I do fine but am not at economic place to afford private education, my offer to kids is where I live, which even with the dilution is still excellent education.
We (and almost every parent around us) are very engaged with schools with volunteering and additional funding. In fact I am a treasurer of the schools foundation that donates up to a $1 million/year to school for all kinds of things, mostly general funding. That tends to help but really, even our little district needs like extra ~$20mil to fund what we're supposed to.
Anyhow, on cleverness nd equity, what it boils down to me is that the world is becoming just one big lake now with talent being increasingly able to accrue huge benefits. This talent needs education and people who want best for their kids (including me) will do whatever is necessary to get that. This is why there is extra tutoring in china and private schools in USA and fancy boarding schools in UK for $$$. If public schools do remove this equity stuff, it'll just float via money to those other areas. It isn't bad/good, it just is.
Anyhow, a bit of a rant/laundry list, but here you have it.
Re: The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted education programs (2021)
#216>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. Just "make" everyone qualified / good at algebra? I feel like that glosses over the ALL the challenges with education ...
Re: The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted education programs (2021)
#217There 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…
In NYC they also flatten all Asians into one group and say the “gifted” programs aren't diverse enough because a high percentage are Asian. As if implying Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean, etc. all have the same life experience, cultures, advantages, disadvantages… Also you nailed it on the property tax point. Often overlooked as the biggest issue with education. A similar sized home in a good school district ca…
Re: The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted education programs (2021)
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It is much more expensive to teach and support the children at lower performing schools than it is at higher performing schools. Lower performing schools are also providing significant front line social support services for the communities they serve, including food, trauma counseling, sometimes medical intervention, extreme behavior management. None of that is cheap. Students/families at higher performing schools ha…
Blame education schools and their failing "every student can simply learn their math on their own!" approach. Total self-serving garbage, devised to cater to the ego of naïve prospective teachers and their expectation of not doing any real teaching work.
Re: The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted education programs (2021)
#219Re: The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted education programs (2021)
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.