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)

#331

Post by calculatte » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:53 PM UTC

hn_version_0023 wrote: post #210

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…

Knowing nothing about this topic other than hearsay and the opinions of my elderly parents… both of them teachers in public high schools… Do these per-pupil funding numbers have any meaning when your home and community are broken and one or both of your parents is an addict or incarcerated? Because it seems to me we’ve been acting with intent as a society to keep the families, homes, and communities of everyone not w…

Every group claims the same targeting. "Everyone not white" is just being divisive. Go to a poor white area and you'll see the same drug addiction, broken home, incarceration problems. Is this your job to fix? Do you think the government has the inclination or the possibility of success in addressing these issues?

All that shows is the natural tendency toward persecution complexes and blaming failure on factors out of your control. Finding ways to make society promote personal responsibility, atomic families, etc would actually help. But that is the opposite of current culture of hedonism and "smashing traditional family structure" that gets complete entertainment and political backing.

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

#332

Post by _-david-_ » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:53 PM UTC

bsuvc wrote: post #252

corrral wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my city, the worst schools tend to pay a good 20% better than the best ones, for teachers. They get lots of federal and state aid. People still usually prefer not to work at them, if they have options, because the work environment is terrible.

Why is the work environment terrible?

Not who you were replying to, but my grandmother was a teacher and specifically wanted to work in one of these schools to try to help the students in bad situations. She stopped teaching a while ago, but much of this likely still applies.

Basically, the students frequently don't do their homework, students would just not show up to class or outright just drop out, students misbehave more frequently (including violent behavior), parents care less (or at least act like it). The schools also tend to be in more dangerous areas. They had to lock the teachers' cars in a special lot to prevent vandalism and theft.

Basically it was demoralizing and dangerous.

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

#333

Post by hardwaregeek » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:53 PM UTC

The bigger issue I see is the arbitrary separation of students into grades. Just because everybody is the same age does not mean they're at the same level in a subject. You should be able to take 8th grade math as a 7th grader. In fact it shouldn't be 8th grade math, it should just be Pre-Algebra. Montessori schools put three grades in one class which solves the problem somewhat, although talented students in the top grade quickly get bored.

This stratified structure also impacts how students view social interaction. Each grade is separate and therefore a different social entity. Sure, there are interactions across grades but it's still quite funny to see a sophomore make fun of a freshman when they're 15 and 14 years old respectively. To this day I know people who find it weird that I'm friends with someone who's 18 when I'm 23. I don't see why. We have the same interests and similar personalities. A few years difference doesn't matter.

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

#334

Post by ModernMech » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:53 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…

You didn't even get to the covid restrictions, and parents calling teachers anti-American and traitors and Nazis for supporting mask and vaccine mandates. Teachers were getting death threats after being told they were "essential workers" for a year. Meanwhile they have to use their own funds to buy their own body armor, because they have to buy that along with pencils and paper now.

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

#335

Post by DAlperin » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:53 PM UTC

Alright, I don't imagine this will be a common take here but here goes. I am a product of the New York City public school system. I have spent the majority of my life as a student in it. The New York city public school system is both the largest public school system in the country and the most segregated. The argument about removing gifted programs are built on the faulty assumptions that the students in those programs are "more gifted" than everyone else and that the work is truly more advanced. Neither of those are the case.

Gifted programs are used to advance and maintain the status-quo of segregation in our schools. The correlation between medium household (of which Black americans are at a disadvantage) and acceptance into the gifted program is much stronger than the correlation between merit and acceptance. I've spent my life in this system and I can tell you with one hundred percent confidence that the reason many if not most of my black peers don't get into these programs is not due to any lack of merit or intelligence.

Now lets look at the second assumption, that the gifted programs provide a higher level of education. This is not true. What happens is that gifted programs get significantly higher funding than other schools and so the gifted programs can afford to give a good well rounded education, which is a good thing! The problem is that so many of our schools, especially in Brown and Black neighborhoods) are completely underfunded, without enough teachers or resources. This of course perpetuates the systemic inequities that begun this cycle in the first place thus repeating the whole cycle.

When we are calling for an end to "gifted" programs in New York, it is not because we "hate smart kids" but because we want resources to be evenly divided so that everyone can get a well funded well rounded education, not just the rich kids in gifted classes. This is not a single issue but is a larger component of an attempt to dismantle segregation in public schools. It drives me crazy to no end to see smart people fall into the ideological trap of believing gifted programs are something they aren't.

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

#336

Post by johndfsgdgdfg » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:53 PM UTC

jeremyjh wrote: post #18

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…

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.

I have a very simple solution for LatinX group and it's also about equity. Like ALL other immigrants groups LatinX group should have to go through proper immigration process. Then we will see equity in immigration and equity in education.

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

#337

Post by abirch » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:54 PM UTC

jeffy90 wrote: post #315

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…

I think sometimes we are quick to discount the affect that home life has on children's school performance. Part of the reason school's are better in wealthy areas is because children in wealthy areas tend to have better home life than children in poor areas.

What about differences in teacher salary? All of my kids' teachers have been superb. I agree with you that the outcomes of wealthy areas would be better due to many reasons outside of schools.

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

#338

Post by rootusrootus » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:54 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…

Having done a similar analysis myself, here is what I found. Schools in wealthier areas have better results primarily because the support system at home is much stronger. I.e. A wealthy family's kids do better in school no matter where they go. Another factor, mostly in elementary school, is that wealthier areas get noticeably more volunteer activity from parents.

State & local funding is less important, by far.

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

#339

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:54 PM UTC

giardini wrote: post #70

Gifted children are rare enough that they can be dealt with one at a time. I see no need for special programs. In contrast handicapped children may require special attention. OTOH I have seen students unwilling to attend a particular school b/c it has a reputation for behavioral problems and also low testing scores. So best spend money on improving education for all. I would like to see more usage of an old tradition…

[deleted]

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

#340

Post by zozbot234 » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:54 PM UTC

danans wrote: post #298

brewdad wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The lower performing schools also tend to be older and require more maintenance and repairs than newer schools in wealthier areas. Sure, that's a factor too, but I'd still call it a social service issue since it ultimately results from the historical disinvestment in the communities that today have low performing schools. There are reasons that the roofs didn't get repaired and the lead pipes didn't get replaced in…

Except that this whole movement is now reversing. These communities are starting to gentrify and grow rich - to the horror of progressive activists everywhere! Damned if you do, damned if you don't. You just can't win!