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

221–230 of 922 posts

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

#221

Post by eli »

willcipriano wrote: post #160
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…

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.

Sure. Title 1 schools, for example, get extra federal funding. They also have 40+% of students living in poverty. Some of that money goes to buy breakfast for kids who otherwise wouldn't have food to eat in the morning.

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

#224

Post by [deleted] »

willcipriano wrote: post #160
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…

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.

[deleted]

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

#225

Post by colinmhayes »

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.

That is exactly what the article says...

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

#226

Post by atestu »

arcticbull wrote: post #200
temp8964 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If that's true why do private prisons have such higher recidivism rates? This is simply false. > Mamun et al. (2020) report on studies that demonstrate that recidivism rates in private prisons are between 16.7% (Spivak & Sharp, 2008) and 22% (Duwe & Clark, 2013) higher when compared to public prisons. [1] When providing services, private companies do worse because their charter is not to provide services per se, it's…

The incentives are misaligned. Private prisons make more money if people go back to prison…!

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

#227

Post by bluGill »

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.

No surprise, in des moines all schools in the area get the same funding per student. This includes inner city schools, suburbs, and rural schools. Yet there is still a large difference in results with the inner city schools doing worse than the suburbs by far.

Either it is cities elect different people to school boards (seems unlikely but I can't prove it), or family background makes the biggest difference. Many others have pointed out family background as the key, I tentend to believe it.

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

#228

Post by yodsanklai »

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?

In France, the problem isn't avoided. Public schools are roughly the same everywhere in term of resources and quality of teacher. But for the most part, kids go to a school near their home, and if they live in a rich area, they'll have better studying conditions than if they live in a poor area. It seems the government is always trying to improve this situation with very little success.

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

#229

Post by lupire »

hintymad wrote: post #189
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 p…

What if those most advanced students don't have rich connected parents to expose them to educational opportunities?

If schooling doesn't matter for the brightest students, why does everyone think Caltech is such a great school?

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

#230

Post by iisan7 »

giardini wrote: post #70

Gifted children are rare enough that they can be dealt with one at a time. I see no need for special programs. In contrast handicapped children may require special attention. OTOH I have seen students unwilling to attend a particular school b/c it has a reputation for behavioral problems and also low testing scores. So best spend money on improving education for all. I would like to see more usage of an old tradition…

sometimes that can work but I have my doubts as to it being a good general policy. not at all guaranteed that it promotes camaraderie, over, say being called arrogant, teacher's pet, and ostracized by the others as 'too good'.

Kids should be able to form friendships with those at different levels and help their friends, but shouldn't be asked to be their teachers or mentors. it's incredibly unfair to require students in the class to function as teachers. They are there to learn, and if they've learned everything on the curriculum, they should be able to learn more.

Teachers used to handle this by letting the kids have 'free time' after assignments to go to the library, or whatever. Gifted programs do this even better by putting them in a class with kids at a similar level so they are less likely to need special treatment or to be called 'smart'. This can actually help them realize early in life that they aren't automatically special because they're at the top of their class.

Post reply on HN