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

261–270 of 922 posts

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

#261

Post by wbsss4412 »

lupire wrote: post #220
wbsss4412 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's your point? That if a rich parent teaches their kid to read, the fair solution is for the school to unteach the kid, to level the playing field?

I would imagine that the people who are pushing for more equitable systems would argue that would should give people who lack that kind of parental support more help.

Why should a child suffer simply because they were born into a less supportive family environment?

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

#262

Post by nkrisc »

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.

Why? The point of a public school is that they serve the public good, not shareholder value. The issue isn't that public schools are a money pit, the issue is whether they're educating students.

A business will seek a profit. That should not be a factor at all in public education. The costs of public education should certainly be considered, especially the question of how much is spent and the quality of the education. That should always be under careful review. However the purpose of public education is to spend our collective money educating the populace. It should be a cost, it shouldn't make money. It's not meant to, it's meant to educate.

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

#263

Post by beebee94kai »

I was a black child in the gifted program as a kid. At that age, there were other black kids too, it just depended on which school you came from. And I wasn't privileged, my classmates had way more money at the time and I could tell back then. But they were still my friends and treated me no different. I think its the parents that put the emphasis on it and use it as a status symbol for their kids. As a child, I had fun. But however, I do remember this one white girl, she was so stuck up and thought she was better than everyone else. I was in the 2nd grade and even then I could tell that. But I don't think it was because of the gifted program, she was just stuck up. But her mom was also a teacher, and her mom was super nice.

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

#264

Post by lupire »

rhexs wrote: post #151
chucksta wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you have to be in gifted to have a successful life?

IQ correlates extremely heavily with having a successful life by western civilization standards, yes.

So we should accept that 98 0+% of people can or gave a successful life, yet should support the gifted I don't want to spend my tax money educating future bankers.

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

#265

Post by thorncorona »

adverbly wrote: post #127

Gifted programs threads on HN are the new flame war battlegrounds... turns people into an armchair geniuses, ready to post solutions based on some anecdotal data. I pity the actual researchers in these fields. Must be tough to work in an area that everyone has an opinion on.

It’s easy to be passionate about education when it changes lives

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

#266

Post by 0des »

chucksta wrote: post #163
rhexs wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IQ correlates extremely heavily with having a successful life by western civilization standards, yes.

So you can't have a high IQ and not be in gifted?

any time you feel your hands touch your hips, and your sentence begins to start with the word "so", just stop what youre doing and go have a snickers.

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

#267

Post by MockObject »

wbsss4412 wrote: post #247
rajin444 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

What does "socially determined" mean, and what are the alternatives?

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

#268

Post by bluGill »

ouid wrote: post #143
mymllnthaccount wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so funny to me that people treat businesses and government so differently. Want results from your start up? Find someone to invest in it. Want results from a government program? Well, we need to cut out all the wasteful spending.

Cutting out wasteful spending may make your shitty schools cheaper, but it will not make them better.

But it may free up money for things that will make the schools better. Maybe, it is easy to see a problem, hard to fix it.

If nothing else a tax break (even if it is only a few cents per resident) is a better use than some programs

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

#269

Post by dpbriggs »

chucksta wrote: post #87
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.

So you have to be in gifted to have a successful life?

That helps a lot but not necessarily required. If you require/aspire for radical social mobility being gifted is extreme help. If you're looking to have a modest life with family outside of expensive cities being gifted isn't much of a help.

As well, by definition, to be gifted you need to be an outlier. Most people get by and live a decent, if stressful, life.

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

#270

Post by zjaffee »

Gifted programs, depending on where in the country they are located, are deeply related to equity. Things have gotten better over the past decade even without their total elimination, but for the majority of people who are of age to be posting here, if they were in a gifted program, it likely is because they had parents who helped them study for the tests to get in by spending money. Once in said program, fundraising through the PTA is easier done because the average student is better off financially than at the nearby public school.

When I was growing up in NYC I was in a gifted program, and the average family was donating several thousand dollars a year per child. There were benefits such that if one child was in the program, other siblings automatically got in. This allowed us to have privately funded music program alongside privately funded teaching assistants in every classroom.

Post reply on HN