Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

teachforamerica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 922 posts

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

#381

Post by SpaceManNabs »

I went to a charter school because my designated high school was very prone to violence. I am an afro latino immigrant raised by a single mom. I truly understand that these public schools are losing their best performing kids to these charter schools which leads to worse aggregate outcomes. However, I am certain that I would not have been able to get into my ivy league alma mater without the support and isolation from chaos that my charter school provided.

Why should I have a worse outcome just to raise the mean scores in a place where everyone else isn't capable (due to harsh environment) or willing to learn? In addition, I think it hurts arguments for affirmative action. When people think of affirmative action / need-based approaches, they think of these other kids and not me. (You wouldn't be able to tell that I benefitted from those programs if you met me given my high school achievements from over a decade ago).

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

#382

Post by mikeho1999 »

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…

No, this is not a myth at all.

At least not in California...

"State-Provided" funds are calculated by the LCFF (Local Control Funding Formula), which is a combination of both State and Local funds.

Depending on the district, if local funds is not enough to fund the district, then yes, state tax revenue steps in to provide the rest.

However, for districts where local funds is enough or exceeds the district need, then these these districts (referred to as "Basic Aid" or "Excess Revenue" districts) aren't provided state revenue, and they are able to keep the excess local revenue for their needs. (https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/ and https://www.saratogausd.org/Page/519)

For a more specific example, one of the top school districts in Silicon Valley is the Fremont Union High School District (https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1626711559/fuhsdorg/...)

In 2021, their total revenue was $169M, where $156M (92%) came from property taxes. This resulted in spending per pupil of $23,491, far exceeding the state medium of $16,042.

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

#383

Post by arcticbull »

rootusrootus wrote: post #363
arcticbull wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All sorts of past failed experiments: - Private fire departments that used to show up at your house and demand payment in order to put the fire out, otherwise they'd just let your house burn to the ground. In Rome, they'd literally show up at your house, and buy it from you for pennies on the dollar before putting it out. - Private prisons fail the people in the way I've described. - Private healthcare fails American…

> Private fire departments 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…

My understanding is there are very few, and each dollar profiteered off this basic service is not spent improving the fire department. Do you have statistics on this?

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

#384

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

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 can't help being reminded of Harrison Bergeron.

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

#385

Post by tqi »

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…

> It is universal common knowledge that the ease with which one takes to math is different for different people. Why can't we just admit it and quit trying to make people who are unique the same?

I disagree with this statement, especially at the level of arithmetic and basic algebra. While math "ability" is likely a bell curve I would wager that it is centered well above Algebra I, and whether a kid at that age is "Good" or "Bad" at math is much more mindset/perception.

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

#386

Post by brewdad »

bluGill wrote: post #227
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.

No surprise, in des moines all schools in the area get the same funding per student. This includes inner city schools, suburbs, and rural schools. Yet there is still a large difference in results with the inner city schools doing worse than the suburbs by far. Either it is cities elect different people to school boards (seems unlikely but I can't prove it), or family background makes the biggest difference. Many othe…

My kid's HS has teetered on the edge of Title 1 status over the years but lately has trended better. The top 10% of kids have upper middle class backgrounds and a stable home life. They tend to have exceptional outcomes. The bottom 40% of kids come from families living near the poverty line. They tend to get shuffled along until they barely graduate or dropout.

The middle 50% have outcomes that are all over the place but tend to correlate with parental involvement and who the kids pair off with in their friends groups. Some get pulled upward to exceed expected outcomes and some get pulled towards the bottom. It's been fascinating to see how different two kids from very similar backgrounds can end up based on the randomness of who they sat with at lunch one day 4 years ago or who was assigned to be their lab partner in 10th grade.

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

#387

Post by actually_a_dog »

rajup wrote: post #357
actually_a_dog wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Okay, that's a fair point. Give the lunch room staff a pay raise instead, or build that statue lol :)

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

#388

Post by nofinator »

This 2021 article strikes me as mostly a straw man and a veiled sales pitch.

It's rare that a Gifted Program simply gets eliminated due to inequity with no replacement. The school district almost always proposes an alternate program to replace it. (The author is the CEO and Founder of one, though he does acknowledge this near the end.)

The author also links to two examples of districts with reduced or eliminated Gifted Programs. But one article says the Anchorage program was cut because of a budget shortfall, and the other (Boston) said they suspended their advanced learning program only at the city-wide level mainly because COVID made it hard to administer!

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

#389

Post by tzs »

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…

> Twenty years ago Bush (43) passed the No Child Left Behind Act, which many dubbed the No Child Gets Ahead Act. A lot of this was also in the name of "equity".

That was a very bipartisan bill. It was coauthored by Ted Kennedy, passed in the House 381-41, and passed in the Senate 87-10.

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

#390

Post by slothtrop »

DAlperin wrote: post #335

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 progra…

In other words you're arguing it's zero-sum, as though gifted programs take up a sizable chunk of funding rather than, you know, the schools.
Post reply on HN