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

411–420 of 922 posts

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

#411

Post by mrtranscendence »

zozbot234 wrote: post #191
SoftTalker wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You struggled with math in elementary school because of deeply flawed teaching. Even at that early age, it's not hard to understand that "3 + 5 = 8" is not something that you'd need to literally memorize. Of course, the fact that teaching quality can vary to such an extent is itself noteworthy.

I don't think I agree. 3 + 5 = 8 isn't something you need to literally memorize, but if you don't memorize such facts of basic arithmetic you're at a disadvantage when it comes to doing homework and tests. It's easier and less error-prone to memorize 8*7 than it is to work it out manually every time you see it until it sticks.

For what it's worth, I struggled with math in elementary school and especially high school -- I failed algebra I, then passed it with a D; then I failed algebra II before passing it* with a D. It wasn't until I was forced to take a business calculus class in my 20s that it started clicking, and I assure you the quality of instruction wasn't any better at the college level than it was in high school. (I did eventually graduate with honors with a math degree.)

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

#412

Post by Tyr42 »

hintymad wrote: post #281
lupire wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if those most advanced students don't have rich connected parents to expose them to educational opportunities? If schooling doesn't matter for the brightest students, why does everyone think Caltech is such a great school?

Fair question. My assumption is that the US schools offer students enough exposure and resources of advanced topics, to the point that top students will find their way. For instance, libraries, vast resources on the internet, community colleges, programs with local universities, and etc. The assumption can be challenged, of course. Case in point, this problem on Stackexchange was from a high-school homework. I think…

Getting out of doing the "boring busywork" is part of the advantage of being in the gifted class too though. Just doing both sets of work isn't a solution.

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

#414

Post by photochemsyn »

I think minimal standards are a pretty good idea, for both mental and physical education. The attitude that all children should be able to reach these standards, and if they don't that's the fault of the educational system, also makes a lot of sense. What those standards should be is a matter for debate, but if we look around the world (China ahem) we might get some ideas about what the competitive level is currently.

To enforce this, you need to do two things: fire underperforming teachers, and their administrative overseers if the problem is pervasive, and pay teachers competitive salaries to attract the best talent to the job. Teaching is a skill, and highly skilled people should be well-compensated for their work. This is just labor market 101. If you don't value education, you pay low salaries to educators and you scrape the bottom of the talent barrel. If you do value education, then you make the job competitive by offering high salaries and eliminating underperformers.

Of course, maybe the politicians and bureaucrats and corporate executives don't actually want a highly educated competent population? Perhaps they'd prefer dumb sheep who believe whatever propaganda they're fed and whose consumption habits can be easily directed by skilled advertisers and marketers. Herds of compliant consumers who do as they're told, that's perhaps what elite leadership is after. Might be a conspiracy theory but there's some truth to it I think.

What it really looks like is one set of schools for the aristocrats, and another set of schools for the serfs, and it's more about maintaining a certain class structure, just as in late 19th / early 20th century British schooling systems.

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

#415

Post by bfaviero »

I grew up as a dirt poor immigrant. The only reason I got into MIT, and am successful today, was because of the gifted programs that allowed me to stand out from the other mediocre students at the schools.

Were most of my gifted classmates wealthy? Yes. But being among them did more for my social mobility than anything else the school ever did.

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

#416

Post by glerk »

lights0123 wrote: post #358
glerk wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Ah makes sense then. I remember seeing stuff like 3x+2=11 around the 4th grade, but definitely no quadratics or graphing functions until much later. Maybe the order the information is presented is just different and it doesn’t make sense to compare.

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

#417

Post by jfk13 »

bluGill wrote: post #268
ouid wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cutting out wasteful spending may make your shitty schools cheaper, but it will not make them better.

But it may free up money for things that will make the schools better. Maybe, it is easy to see a problem, hard to fix it. If nothing else a tax break (even if it is only a few cents per resident) is a better use than some programs

> a tax break (even if it is only a few cents per resident) is a better use than some programs

Very likely so, but which programs exactly? (Are you uniquely well-qualified to make that determination? If not, who is, and how can we know that?)

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

#418

Post by iso1631 »

brian_cloutier wrote: post #192
bobkazamakis wrote: post #168

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: >on average, both Black and Latinx total per pupil expenditures exceed White total per pupil expenditures by $229.53 and $126.15, respectively - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2…

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

If funding was

$6k for white pupil in NY $5k for black pupil in NY

$3k for white pupil in Ohio $2k for black pupil in Ohio

Clearly that's more money for white pupils regardless of location

Now imagine that there's 60 black students in NY and 10 in Ohio, but 10 white students in NY and 60 in Ohio

That means total funding is 320k for 70 black pupils and 240k for 70 white students

So you can spin the figures to say that black pupils get more funding, but the truth is the opposite.

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

#419

Post by lazide »

nkrisc wrote: post #262
temp8964 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why? The point of a public school is that they serve the public good, not shareholder value. The issue isn't that public schools are a money pit, the issue is whether they're educating students. A business will seek a profit. That should not be a factor at all in public education. The costs of public education should certainly be considered, especially the question of how much is spent and the quality of the educatio…

Many public schools are run as an administrative jobs program, not as a public good.

Well, they do if public good is as a daycare to let the parents work. Which is something.

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

#420

Post by jacobolus »

robonerd wrote: post #274
lupire wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who needs a better teacher? The gifted student or the remedial student? Gifted students (at least up to middle school) don't need special teachers (an 8th grade math teacher could teach gifted 6th graders), they just need challenging material and peers to keep them motivated and study with.

> Who needs a better teacher? The gifted student or the remedial student? The well-behaved students. Good teachers are wasted on troublemakers and class clowns, regardless of their IQ. And if a dim student who scores poorly on IQ tests knows how to sit quietly and behave themself, I think good teachers will help them a lot.

> Good teachers are wasted on troublemakers and class clowns

It is entirely natural for children to “clown around” in a boring setting, and their lack of interest / trouble focusing reflects a societal (and school) failure to make school engaging and give them the appropriate challenges and direct feedback to keep their attention. Many of the greatest human breakthroughs were made by people who were squirmy and distractible as children, who had difficulty with the formal school curriculum, or who were ostracized by their classmates for one reason or another.

Every child deserves attention from good teachers. Good teachers with enough resources can provide a significant benefit to these students and integrate them into a smoothly functioning classroom. Assigning troublesome students to weak or unsympathetic teachers is a tremendous “waste” of human talent.

Post reply on HN