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)

#231

Post by bluescrn » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:37 PM UTC

temp8964 wrote: post #190

300bps wrote: post #161

Earlier 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.

Maybe in a competitive environment a private business could do better. But if you're creating a local private monopoly, you're just pouring a large chunk of the funding into the pockets of overpaid bosses or shareholders

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

#232

Post by brewdad » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:37 PM UTC

danans wrote: post #194

willcipriano wrote: post #160

Earlier 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…

The lower performing schools also tend to be older and require more maintenance and repairs than newer schools in wealthier areas. Not all of that additional per-pupil funding makes it to the classroom.

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

#233

Post by zmgsabst » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:37 PM UTC

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…

> 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) that any pure meritocracy leads to a system where their racial group possesses disproportionately less power vs their population.

You’re describing why you believe it’s okay to discriminate against that Asian student because there’s “too many yellows, not enough blacks”.

You’re also ignoring that they’re choosing to engage in institutional racism rather than utilize programs such as meritocracy + individual aid, which automatically counter any “structural disadvantages” — that is, they’re choosing racism when better alternatives exist.

> The reason you see that as "racial tribes" is that you fundamentally are underestimating how much marginalized communities distrust communities outside of their own. Black people do not trust that if Asian students go to Harvard and gain positions of power that those adults will protect their interests. They want their own in those positions.

You just described racism and a belief in racial tribes — exactly what I said was driving this.

> They aren't saying that.

You start off disagreeing — and then go on to describe exactly what I said.

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

#234

Post by davewritescode » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:37 PM UTC

googlryas wrote: post #73

whatshisface wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a bad analogy because the NBA is not the only accessible path to a stable middle class life while school, for many people, is.

Not even close to true. Going into a trade is a great way to get into a comfortable middle class life. And in those trades, you'll commonly find people who did horrible in school, and thought they were idiots because of it.

Not everyone is cut out to be a plumber or an electrician.

The ultimate goal should be to provide better education for everyone so that all students have as many available options by the time they're ready to pick a career path.

Also, I hate these comments from white collar folks about blue collar jobs being the answer to everything. Yes we need them, but we also need to be honest that the average plumber is going to have a harder time working until 65 than an office worker.

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

#235

Post by blatherard » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:37 PM UTC

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'll add some additional color to the funding "uniqueness". At least in NYC, there are Parent-Teacher Associations that are private organizations that raise money for specific schools. These PTAs are, themselves, a great source of inequality within the public schools.

For extreme examples the PTA at PS 87, an elementary school in the Upper West Side raised 2 million dollars in 2019 (the last number I could find numbers for) [1]; our son's school (also in the UWS, where we live) raised a little shy of 1 million that same year, via an annual campaign, auction fund-raiser, and a few other events.

This money is used for many things, like capital improvements and enhanced services. At our son's school this was used to upgrade air conditioning in the building, pay for extra teaching assistants, and fund a library and librarian, amongst other things.

Numerous schools have no PTA fund-raising at all or raise a few thousand dollars, because they serve less-affluent areas. This kind of inequality is vexing because there isn't any taxing going on, just very active parent bases with money to give.

--

[1] https://ny.chalkbeat.org/2019/12/2/21113658/find-out-how-muc...

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

#236

Post by Retric » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:37 PM UTC

temp8964 wrote: post #190

300bps wrote: post #161

Earlier 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.

Private schools don’t significantly outperform public schools in the US when adjusted for the differences in student populations.

There are some world class private schools in the US and some terrible private schools it’s really a mixed bag, just like public schools.

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

#237

Post by robonerd » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:38 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…

Algebra I at 8th grade would have placed you a year behind when I was in school. 7th grade was Algrebra 1, Algebra 2 was 8th, Geometry was 9th (first year of highschool). 10th grade had Trig, 11th had pre-Calc, and Calculus was the final year.

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

#238

Post by temp8964 » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:38 PM UTC

corrral wrote: post #213

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.

Difficulty: lots of private schools still manage to be pretty bad, while charging those kinds of rates.

Private school tuitions are much lower than public school funding.

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

#239

Post by dpbriggs » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:38 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…

At the very least it would be useful to offer supplements for the mathematically interested. If it's accredited we'll run into the same conversation but at least students will have access to more interesting material.

In my experience tutoring remedial math students just had a hole somewhere or never practiced. Once both of those were addressed (with lots of hard work) they passed just fine.

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

#240

Post by superb-owl » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:38 PM UTC

jaywalk wrote: post #99

superb-owl wrote: post #52

I've never understood this approach of "eliminating gifted programs" due to equity concerns. Why not just implement something along the lines of affirmative action policies - make sure the demographics gifted programs roughly match the demographics of the school district?

How does shoving a student into a gifted program they aren't otherwise qualified for solely due to their race actually help anything?

This assumes that current admissions are purely meritocratic, when, as the article points out, they're not:

> Black students are 66% less likely to be identified as gifted compared to white students with similar test scores

But even if we supposed that the top 10% of Black students were slightly less qualified than the top 10% of White students (say, due to socioeconomic factors), the program would simply adjust towards the mean student. So maybe the program slows down a bit, but it's still an accelerated program, and now it's helping to correct those socioeconomic disparities.

The only case where this argument would break down is if the top 10% of Black students were _severely_ less qualified than the top 10% of White students, in which case the program would likely fail. But it seems pretty clear that this isn't the case.