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)

#351

Post by sandstrom » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:57 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?

"Is one group inherently inferior?"

It's reasonable to think that there is (A) some correlation between parental income and intelligence. Also, it's reasonable to think there is (B) correlation between parental intelligence and their children's intelligence, which in turn (C) correlate with school performance.

Source on B: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

Sources on A and C: https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/ses/2007-strenze.pdf

So yes, maybe people in the low income group are "inferior" in the sense that they'll have a harder time in school, because they are (on average) less bright. Everyone knows that some kids have an easy time in school because they are quick-witted, and others will have a harder time.

That's not saying we shouldn't try to help them, we certainly should! But I think we'll make less progress on that goal if we cannot admit that some kids will have a more difficult time than others.

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

#352

Post by wbsss4412 » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:57 PM UTC

MockObject wrote: post #267

wbsss4412 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

The best analogy I can think of is sports.

In sports, the rules are whatever we say they are, that’s the part that’s socially determined. Lebron James is a amazing basketball player, due to a combination of his genetics and his hard work. But there’s a parallel reality wherein basketball was never invented. And people enjoy sports like horse racing or marathon running, where he would never be able to be world class given his frame. What sports are popular is based on culture and happenstance, and up to the whims of society, not genetics or hard work of individuals.

For several hundred years, America literally constructed a society where it was decided that white people were considered more valuable than black people. That had nothing to do with what individual black people did, those were just the rules of the game.

You may say “but that’s not how it is anymore”, and yes things have certainly changed. But at the same time, there are people who are alive today who weren’t allowed to attend the same schools as whites, weren’t allowed to drink from the same fountains as whites, etc.

The argument that is being made, is that society continues to favor people based upon the color of their skin. Certainly, individual talents and hard work contribute to one’s place in life, but that does not mean that the playing field is level.

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

#353

Post by brianwawok » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:57 PM UTC

skyde wrote: post #318

brianwawok wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

you are saying school (1,2,3) get same funding per pupil. but test score for 1 is worse than 3. So why send you kid to school 4 instead of school 3 ? Is the test score at school 4 significantly better? I am a parent of a 4 years old, and we recently moved from Canada to USA. Option (4) in Canada is almost non-existent so this is new to me! I have been trying to compare test-score between private schools and public sc…

> you are saying school (1,2,3) get same funding per pupil. but test score for 1 is worse than 3.

Yes, and in fact its petty big jumps. 3 >> 2 >> 1. We are talking like 95th, 50th, and 10th percentiles statewide (percentiles picked for effect, did not pull up the data)

> Any idea how they could be compared in a data-drive way?

Right, and that is the hard part. If they don't do the same tests, you cannot have this data.

However, the more you look at layers of this data, you will find that the most important thing you care. Parents looking at school rankings have kids that perform much better than kids that have parent's who do not look at this data.

For me, I knew that 3 or 4 would give my kids a fine education. So I toured both (and actually had an older kid already in #3). The reason I sprang for #4 was

1) Smaller class size. Something like 15 kids per class, vs 30. All else being equal, you get way more chances for success the closer you are to the teacher.

2) Likeminded parents. People send kids there because they want the best. They are the high achievers. The college profressors and doctors of the area. #3 wasn't too far off, but you still got to see stuff like parents smoking in the carline with their windows up and the kids locked inside (grrrr).

3) More opportunities. #3 school starts music class at like 6th grade. #4 starts like 2nd or 3rd grade. It is something not reflected in test scores, so not important to public schools. But something shown to be good, so it's available for parents.

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

#354

Post by __abc » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:57 PM UTC

I moved my family as the town I lived in did exactly this. They also removed support programs for those falling behind vs racing ahead. All under the equity banner.

The New town we moved to is great. Oldest kid in accelerated programs, accelerating. Younger kid got the support she needed to catch up. :chefs_kiss:

Taking a step back, I don’t know how ‘equity’ got twisted into creating a lowering tide for all vs. a rising tide for all. So confusing.

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

#355

Post by nikolay » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:57 PM UTC

When people talk about Communism, they imagine everybody being equally rich. Well, the reality showed us that Communism can only make people equally poor and miserable. Similarly, liberalism tries to make everybody equally stupid, not equally smart! But, as we know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions!

As a father of a decently-gifted son who gets bored to death at school and who's bombarded with brainless homework to stay "out of trouble" when not in school, I can tell the California education is the worst I can imagine in a civilized country!

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

#356

Post by MarkMarine » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:58 PM UTC

As a "gifted" student in a tiny town, I had my 3rd and 4th grade math "class" in the hallway, where the teachers drug my desk and slapped down a geometry textbook and told me to teach myself. In other classes they tried to get me to help teach my classmates the concepts, which is not a great place for a 4th grader to be in.

By high school I'd learned to read the textbook, ace the tests and do fuck-all for homework to the frustration of every educator at the school trying to teach me hard work alongside the actual material. There were actually AP classes in high school that I never qualified for because I never learned to actually work at school, and by high school I didn't really care. I was completely unprepared when Junior year in college, it actually got so hard that I had to study. I almost flunked out.

I can empathize with the gifted kids that are just a different shade, not getting challenged, basically getting the small town experience I got. It is a ton of potential being wasted. I agree with the article, throwing away gifted programs and just lowering the bar is a mistake, but raising everyones bar to the gifted level... that's going to leave some of the most vulnerable behind which I don't think should be done either.

Maybe working to shore up the problem of black/brown kids having equal test scores and not getting into a gifted program is the first hurdle, and then we can look around and see what to do next.

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

#357

Post by rajup » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:58 PM UTC

actually_a_dog wrote: post #278

brian_cloutier wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes it so bad, and what would be a better way?

I don't have a great alternative in mind, but here is why it's not a good measure: suppose I take any school, then give the teachers a pay raise or a pay cut of X%. Nothing has fundamentally changed about the school, but per student expenditure has gone up or down, respectively, depending on which direction the salary adjustment was.

I mean hypothetically all the money given to a school could be used to build a giant statue but does that actually happen? In your example, are we sure giving teachers a pay rise does not make them more motivated and hence leading to better outcomes?

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

#358

Post by lights0123 » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:58 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.

Algebra I also generally includes systems of (2 or 3) linear equations, quadratics (different equation forms, factoring, graphing, solving) and basic exponential functions (although usually just recognizing them and filling in Ce^rt).

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

#359

Post by kube-system » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:58 PM UTC

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.

They achieve this primarily because they often exclude low performing students... either directly or indirectly.

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

#360

Post by dimitrios1 » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:58 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #104

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…

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-54c0IdxZWc&t=45s