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)

#281

Post by hintymad » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:43 PM UTC

lupire wrote: post #229

hintymad wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Fair question. My assumption is that the US schools offer students enough exposure and resources of advanced topics, to the point that top students will find their way. For instance, libraries, vast resources on the internet, community colleges, programs with local universities, and etc.

The assumption can be challenged, of course.

Case in point, this problem on Stackexchange was from a high-school homework. I think it's advanced enough for students: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/711174/calculati...

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

#282

Post by jmyeet » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:43 PM UTC

car_analogy wrote: post #133

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…

> 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…

From the abstract of the paper you cited:

> Yet race remains related to funding disparities and schooling experiences in ways that raise concerns about the role of school finance in perpetuating racial opportunity gaps.

What you are pulling out seems to be narrowly-focused and highly-contextualized.

Consider [1]:

> Property taxation and school funding are closely linked in the United States. In 2018–2019, public education revenue totaled $771 billion. Nearly half (47 percent) came from state governments, slightly less than half (45 percent) from local government sources, and a modest share (8 percent) from the federal government. Of the local revenue, about 36 percent came from property taxes. The remaining 8.9 percent was generated from other taxes; fees and charges for things like school lunches and athletic events; and contributions from individuals, organizations, or businesses.

[1]: https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/articles/2022-04-pu...

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

#283

Post by HardlyCurious » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:43 PM UTC

HWR_14 wrote: post #137

WalterBright wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. Are you referring to when the state finally complied with court orders that they were illegally and unconstitutionally underfunding public schools? (A lawsuit started over a decade before and decided over a half a decade before action was take…

To make a compelling case that funding matters to outcome you really need to detail how a lack of funding hurts the learning process.

Are the teachers bad teachers, and more pay will recruit better teachers? I'm not sure how many teachers enter the profession for the money to be honest. I'm sure they would like pay, but I'm not really of the mind that the curre nt crop of teachers are on average bad.

Do kids not have a suitable learning environment? Are they distracted by rodents, roaches, noisy equipment, uncomfortable temperatures, lack of seating or desks?

Do the kids not have educational material? Books, marker boards and markers for them, paper, etc?

If any of those things were lacking I would totally agree that learning could be impacted and change was needed. And I would be really curious how at current funding levels, which are not low compared to other countries, those deficits are occuring.

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

#284

Post by skyde » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:44 PM UTC

Wow as a white men that is completely against affirmative action I still 100% agree with everything in this article.

Basically if only 2% of student taking algebra 1 are black then the solution is : 1- not to Remove algebra 1 completely. 2- not to force a % of the algebra 1 student to be black by accepting student that are not ready for this level of Math 3- not too invent a new (non-racist) version of algebra 1 that is easier to understand .

The solution is simply to embrace asynchronous development!

If one student test score below average in English and Geography but above average in math. He should still be allowed to take Algebra 1.

Also algebra 1 should be offered as an option in all neighborhood (including poor one) even if only a single student in that neighborhood would like to take it.

I see being allowed to take the class if you qualify as a Right similar to the right to Vote. So the parent should not be forced to drive the student to another school because the local school prefer to not offer the class.

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

#285

Post by baisq » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:44 PM UTC

charlieyu1 wrote: post #59

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.

How conveniently that the writer omits Asians.

And Jews.

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

#286

Post by readams » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:44 PM UTC

abirch wrote: post #255

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…

> 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: This is not my experience. I chose a more expensive house with higher taxes because the schools are better. They are better funded than those in the surrounding areas. Sure the Federal Govern…

You can conclude from this that the schools are not better because of funding differences. You can try to come up with other reasons why this might be so, but don't point to funding.

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

#287

Post by usrn » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:44 PM UTC

glerk wrote: post #245

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.

No that's about right. People hate math here largely because it's unbearably repetitive.

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

#288

Post by abfan1127 » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:44 PM UTC

thorncorona wrote: post #251

abfan1127 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but then the rowdy kids get left behind. You could argue that the rowdy kids are getting left behind either way.

That sounds like a parenting problem to me.

I agree.

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

#289

Post by HWR_14 » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:44 PM UTC

slowhand09 wrote: post #95

acchow wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why can't we just admit it and quit trying to make people who are unique the same? America keeps conflating equity for equality.

[flagged]

> Conservatives, except the far-right nut-cases and wackos are more likely to support equality of opportunity

I have yet to hear any conservative advocate for more balanced education funding between school districts, more unified national standards for education, lowering tuition costs for public colleges or any other policy that suggests an "equality of opportunity" with regard to education.

Instead, I tend to hear policies that advocate inequality of opportunity, such as favoring parents who want to and can afford the time to homeschool.

Maybe I'm missing some, so please correct me.

> consider outcomes largely depend on the individual, their motivation, and luck.

Thanks for acknowledging "luck". Too many people refuse to.

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

#290

Post by visarga » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:45 PM UTC

chowells wrote: post #166

slowhand09 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

And conservatives are flat-out wrong, as usual, because they're arguing against strawmen they've invented. No one is talking about individuals. The discussion is about group statistics. Individuals are irrelevant to the discussion. If there is a statistical difference in outcomes, why? Is one group inherently inferior? Or is there maybe not the equality of opportunity that they claim?

.. groups might differ in how they set goals and what they consider valuable