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)

#301

Post by aqme28 » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:47 PM UTC

SoftTalker wrote: post #138

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…

Subject categories such as "math" are also very broad. I struggled with math in elementary school, because it was mostly about memorization. 3 + 5 = 8. 6 x 7 = 42. Learning and being able to spit out those facts as quickly and flawlessly as possible was most of what I remember about math as a young kid. I was never good at that. I still am not good at that. I got Cs and sometimes lower grades in math. Somehow, though…

Similarly, I got Cs in math in middle school and early highschool. Once I got to calculus something clicked. Now I have a degree in physics and am pursuing a graduate degree in applied mathematics. The math I do now is nothing like the math I was bad at in middle school.

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

#302

Post by brewdad » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:47 PM UTC

brianwawok wrote: post #180

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…

The property tax leading to funding differences is part of the puzzle, but not all of the puzzle. In my random neck of the world we have roughly 4 school districts. 1) Public school 1. Covers most of the black and brown students of the area. 2) Public school 2. Covers most of the lower to middle class white students of the area. 3) Public school 3. Covers most of the higher class white students, especially families o…

Even when you have poorer families who value the better education their children could receive at option 3, the transportation hurdle can be huge. Often they may lack reliable transportation of their own or work at a job or jobs that don't offer the kind of flexibility in the workday that white-collar workers tend to have.

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

#303

Post by bsuvc » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:47 PM UTC

corrral wrote: post #293

bsuvc wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is the work environment terrible?

Ever had a 3rd grader threaten to stab you, and look like they really mean it? A second grader call you the c-word? That kind of thing happening basically every day, often multiple times a day? Credible threats of gang violence on a regular basis. School-wide lockdowns with some regularity due to threats of violence, or violence that has actually occurred. Admin with extremely limited options to deal with any of this…

Hmm, I can't imagine having to deal with those things. People don't act like that where I live.

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

#304

Post by abfan1127 » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:48 PM UTC

wbsss4412 wrote: post #159

abfan1127 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Equity of opportunity is acceptable. Equity of outcome is a bullshit goal.

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.

I disagree its a strawman argument. Its a clear delineation. Trying to get all kids to successfully complete gifted programs is a very challenging if not impossible goal. Not all kids will be successful in gifted programs. However, Equality of opportunity states that any kids its appropriate for have access. Its an important distinction. Now, its arguable that certain sub-cultures within America make success in school or gifted programming challenging (parents who don't trust schools, parents who don't engage in school for various reasons).

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

#305

Post by athorax » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:48 PM UTC

robonerd wrote: post #48

The gifted program helped me immensely in highschool, although the hour or two I actually spent in the gifted classroom was mostly wasted playing board games. However being in that program gave me the ability to switch classes/teachers whenever one wasn't working for me, usually because some teachers could maintain a civil classroom and other teachers let the students run wild and taught nothing. Because I was in the…

I had a similar experience, not necessarily with being able to move around to different teachers. In general, the teachers for the gifted classes were leagues ahead of the normal teachers. By having access to better teachers, I for sure received a better education than non-gifted students. And honestly, I can see why that is a problem. Ideally all teachers would be competent and caring, but as a society we tend to treat the position as a glorified baby sitter

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

#306

Post by abirch » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:48 PM UTC

readams wrote: post #286

abirch wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The fact that my school provides chromebooks (while other schools in the same county do not) seems to be from a funding perspective. I'm not focusing on outcomes because I would expect people who can afford homes in my town can afford tutors and other resources.

Teachers in my town make ~10% more than in the schools that are two towns over in a predominantly minority town.

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

#307

Post by femiagbabiaka » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:49 PM UTC

bgandrew wrote: post #187

Robotbeat wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> with similar test scores > with similar test scores > WITH SIMILAR TEST SCORES

Quoted post unavailable.

Incredible. Not any statement, but left oriented, because of course lying and half-truths are limited to people with the political orientation you don't agree with...

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

#308

Post by rsync » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:49 PM UTC

citizenkeen wrote: post #156

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.

My MIL is a teacher, and she's taught at wealthy schools and poor schools. Wealthy schools have more money, but they actually often have less - if a school's average socio-economic class drops below a certain point, there's a slew of federal funding available and she often had more resources in a poor school than a wealthy one. The poorest schools are often the middle-class - those too wealthy to qualify for the fund…

"The poorest schools are often the middle-class - those too wealthy to qualify for the funding but not wealthy enough to be rich."

That is a very interesting anecdote and conclusion - thank you.

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

#309

Post by scarmig » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:49 PM UTC

jaywalk wrote: post #107

hawk_ wrote: post #65

> Latinx It's hard to take anyone who uses this term seriously. Latinos can't even pronounce it or care for it.

Latinos almost universally despise it. It was made up by non-Hispanic leftists because... I don't know, something about not forcing gender? It's utterly ridiculous.

If we insist on mutilating Spanish to satisfy intellectual fads, something like "Latine" would be better.

The broader issue is that having grammatical noun classes/gender serves an important purpose: not enforcing the patriarchy, but instead disambiguating different words and antecedents (basically adding an extra bit or two of information to a word).

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

#310

Post by chipsa » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:49 PM UTC

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.

Yes, but if you cut out the wasteful spending, you can redirect that funding to not wasteful things. What spending is wasteful is another question entirely.