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

241–250 of 922 posts

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

#241

Post by lupire »

tonguez wrote: post #117
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…

“…it is unacceptable to have eighth grade Algebra I classes and gifted education programs that disproportionately exclude Black and brown children.” a definition of exclude is “deny (someone) access to or bar (someone) from a place, group, or privilege.” no one is barring access to these classes on the basis race. can you even imagine that? “sorry, you’re not allowed to take this class; you’re black.” it’s like every…

What you don't understand is that advanced classes have limited seats available compared to students who want them.

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

#242

Post by minsc_and_boo »

derac wrote: post #29
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.

Unacceptably white is still a horrible way to phrase this. Is the NBA unacceptably black? Why don't we remove basketball courts from inner cities and cut off black kid's feet /s eye roll BTW, I realize he is arguing for the opposite of this. edit: If you think I am racist or something let me spell it out as I did in another comment: It is not unacceptable when white children have opportunities. It is unacceptable whe…

>Unacceptably white is still a horrible way to phrase this. Is the NBA unacceptably black?

This statement is a textbook syllogistic fallacy.

It ignores the qualification context for being gifted vs. being in the NBA. There are a number of historically exclusive systems, prejudiced on socioeconomic and racial standards, that are required prerequisites for being in a gifted school, which do not exist for being in the NBA.

Put in simpler terms: open basketball courts != gatekeeping gifted schools

EDIT: Nobody here is calling you a racist. Your edit above reads like, "I'm not a racist, but..."

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

#243

Post by merpnderp »

wbsss4412 wrote: post #115
jaywalk wrote: 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.

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…

Socioeconomic status tracks with academic ability because more well off parents are more likely to read to their kids, participate in their education, and get them help when they need it. It’s a lot like how being tall tracks with being in the NBA, it isn’t a requirement but it sure helps.

One of the hardest pills for education policy advocates to swallow is how important parental involvement is. Instead of bitching about equity, people should be hammering parents to be more involved and actively, daily, participate in their child’s education.

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

#244

Post by jeremyjh »

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.

Yes, that is why the SP was written.

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

#245

Post by glerk »

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…

As someone who didn't grow up in the American school system, I am a bit surprised that Algebra I in the 8th grade is considered "gifted education". If Algebra I is about solving linear equations with unknown variables, I am pretty sure I was taught this much earlier than 8th grade as part of the standard curriculum. But maybe this means something different in the United States.

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

#246

Post by tick_tock_tick »

lmkg wrote: post #130
derac wrote: 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…

IQ tests are incredibly predictive nowadays.

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

#247

Post by wbsss4412 »

rajin444 wrote: post #201
wbsss4412 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> That’s a very low bar if you take population level disparities and assume it’s a lack of equity causing this

Are racial disparities socially determined or not?

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

#248

Post by cato_the_elder »

burlesona wrote: post #103

One worldview is that progress is more important than equality, thus inequality is an acceptable side effect so long as life is genuinely improving for everyone. “Rising tide lifts all boats.” Another is that equality is more important than progress. “Take from the rich and give to the poor.” It seems mostly universal that we really want to raise the floor, not lower the ceiling. But so far history suggests that lowe…

It will be resolved, if not by debate then by the hard hit of reality.

Happily, we don't live in a "one world government". So, if a society insists too much on silly ideas, it will be left in the dust by others.

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

#250

Post by jimbob45 »

protomyth wrote: post #14

Equity matters for education, but not the sports teams? If the conversation about gifted and talented programs doesn't include the other activities the school sponsors, then its not fair. We've eliminated voc-ed and now g&t programs. I bet sports cost a bunch.

I'd say I learned much more from the elementary school and middle school sports programs I participated in than I ever learned from the gifted/talented programs I participated in. I find it to be a terrible shame that high school sports are so often limited in participation by elitism (e.g. basketball limited to 10 players, volleyball to ~12, cheerleading to ~20).

I would wholeheartedly support removing limits on high school sports participation. The free market can suck away the elite athletes if they don't feel that high school sports are adequate for their professional development - that's fine, high school should cater to the majority, not an infinitesimal minority.

Post reply on HN