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

Uplift the individual first, trying to tweak things just to pump your numbers up seems like missing the point. I would rather treat education on a more personal outcome level than to treat it like a retail shop where I’m just trying to boost sales to meet some number/category goals.

(I think something similar can be said about this concept when it comes to politicians on TV recommending medical treatments or vaccines “for everyone” which I think is worth mentioning to help frame what I am getting at here but that’s another story.)

These are still definitely a thing. Though I expect they must be regulated so we don't end up in a Rome-style situation.

Edit: Found it. If you're in an area with something like Rural Metro, they put out the fire either way. If you don't have an annual membership with them, then they will invoice you. Nobody offering to buy your home for pennies on the dollar or standing around waiting for your credit card to clear before hosing down the flames.

They are different concepts.

Equal Opportunity is a universal goal that as a society we continue to strive towards even though is impossible to fully achieve.

Equalized Outcomes (Equity) Is a dystopian nightmare.

The idea that all possible differentials between humans can and should have the same outcomes is ludicrous.

I work in education and will give you an example of this nonsense. In a well to do district in Chicago they found that Black students do not do as well in AP Calculus. After years of intervention the district achieved growth and had a record number of black student now enrolled in AP Calculus. However after five years and despite the increase of black students it was still found that white and asian students got higher scores on the AP exam.

The district solution was to cancel AP Calculus and now it is only offered as a third party online course not taught by the school district.

Why was the goal for all groups to have the same test scores? Just absolute rubbish.

Poorer districts tend to have more industrial properties, so they are often better funded than wealthier districts. Especially since most state funding is distributed based on pupil units rather than pupils, and a low-SES student might count as something like 1.5 pupil units. (And a disabled student might count as 2.0 pupil units, etc.)

Both “gifted” (well prepared) and “remedial” (poorly prepared) students benefit dramatically from expert teaching. The well prepared students can continue to progress very quickly through challenging material. The poorly prepared students can get help finding and correcting their weaknesses and misconceptions, and practicing underdeveloped prerequisite skills.

The ideal is for everyone to get significant weekly 1:1 attention from a dedicated tutor/coach, who can help the student to deliberately practice. This significantly outperforms even the best classroom, and students with direct coaching improve probably 2–3 times faster than students without. Essentially all world-class performers in competitive events (sport, music, chess, math contests, ...) have significant amounts of 1:1 coaching.

Unfortunately as a society we don’t have the budget/manpower to provide hours per week of skilled tutoring for every student for every subject. So we try our best to balance available resources with students’/society’s needs.