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)

#421

Post by yig » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 6:08 PM UTC

skyde wrote: post #348

blatherard wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll add some additional color to the funding "uniqueness". At least in NYC, there are Parent-Teacher Associations that are private organizations that raise money for specific schools. These PTAs are, themselves, a great source of inequality within the public schools. For extreme examples the PTA at PS 87, an elementary school in the Upper West Side raised 2 million dollars in 2019 (the last number I could find numbe…

is "PS 87 elementary school" a public school of private school ?

Public School

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

#422

Post by mrtranscendence » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 6:08 PM UTC

bradlys wrote: post #320

aqme28 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similarly, I got Cs in math in middle school and early highschool. Once I got to calculus something clicked. Now I have a degree in physics and am pursuing a graduate degree in applied mathematics. The math I do now is nothing like the math I was bad at in middle school.

Puberty cannot be understated in terms of its effects...

I have a similar story, and puberty was definitely an issue. I didn't get good at math until I was old enough to buy alcohol.

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

#423

Post by PebblesRox » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 6:08 PM UTC

'If equity is the concern, we should also name the inequitable reality that parents with means will always find a way to ensure their children receive whatever out-of-school enrichment resources their children need. My greatest concern? The admirable but demonstrably false notion that school systems can fully implement an “all kids are gifted” framework that attempts to address the issue of eliminating the need for specialized gifted programming.'

This sums up my concerns with detracking.

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

#424

Post by thorncorona » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 6:08 PM UTC

nlittlepoole wrote: post #350

zmgsabst wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The supporters of this form of affirmative action recognize that in a system where black/latino/indigenous students have structural disadvantages (poverty, prejudice, health, etc) that any pure meritocracy leads to a system where their racial group possesses disproportionately less power vs their population. You’re describing why you believe it’s okay to discriminate against that Asian student because there’s “too…

> You’re describing why you believe it’s okay to discriminate against that Asian student because there’s “too many yellows, not enough blacks”. Not really. If intelligence is equal between races and a system is an actual meritocracy, then the balance between groups should be the same. One group outperforming indicates a difference in circumstances. If you believe those circumstances aren't because of disadvantages th…

> If you believe those circumstances aren't because of disadvantages then you either believe one group is inherently more capable than the other, one group works harder than the other, or that one group has a more effective culture.

The more blindingly obvious conclusion is study time among asians is far higher than all other races. [0]

> Generally, there is a lot of animosity within the black community toward ̶A̶s̶i̶a̶n̶ people who tend to believe any of the above (because it is pretty common amongst racist).

Congrats for outing yourself as a racist?

[0] https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012026/tables/table_35.asp

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

#425

Post by SpaceManNabs » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 6:09 PM UTC

chernevik wrote: post #57

"eighth grade Algebra I classes and gifted education programs that disproportionately exclude Black and brown children" The absence of "Black and brown children" doesn't mean they were _excluded_, it means they weren't _selected_, or never applied in the first place. If they were deliberately not selected because of their race, that's wrong and should be fixed pronto. And what are the odds of that? If they were not s…

It took me two years to verify that I was gifted enough for the gifted program in middle school. In fact, they did so incredibly reluctantly because I achieved the highest math scores in my middle school on the state exams (two years in a row). It takes a lot of effort to be recognized as an afro-latino person that can be gifted even with higher scores.

They also only placed me in the math/science gifted sections and would only be placed in the english/social studies gifted sections after much arguing as well.

Guess what? I excelled there too. Now to get away from anecdotes:

> If they were deliberately not selected because of their race, that's wrong and should be fixed pronto. And what are the odds of that?

between 50 to 70% on an individual basis if some studies are to be believed.

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

#426

Post by shagie » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 6:09 PM UTC

retrac wrote: post #391

jmyeet wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the abstract of the paper you cited: > Yet race remains related to funding disparities and schooling experiences in ways that raise concerns about the role of school finance in perpetuating racial opportunity gaps. What you are pulling out seems to be narrowly-focused and highly-contextualized. Consider [1]: > Property taxation and school funding are closely linked in the United States. In 2018–2019, public educ…

From the article you linked: https://www.lincolninst.edu/sites/default/files/content/04.2... Compare California and Massachusetts. It seems to demonstrate the point of the poster you replied to. Despite MA relying nearly twice as much on property tax, as state revenue versus California, it seems to have better outcomes. Mostly because as the article discusses, MA appears to use targeted transfers from state revenue t…

Property tax in California has its own history and complications that makes it difficult to compare California's funding of things based on property tax to anywhere else in the US.

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

#427

Post by WalterBright » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 6:09 PM UTC

HardlyCurious wrote: post #283

HWR_14 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Are you referring to when the state finally complied with court orders that they were illegally and unconstitutionally underfunding public schools? (A lawsuit started over a decade before and decided over a half a decade before action was take…

To make a compelling case that funding matters to outcome you really need to detail how a lack of funding hurts the learning process. Are the teachers bad teachers, and more pay will recruit better teachers? I'm not sure how many teachers enter the profession for the money to be honest. I'm sure they would like pay, but I'm not really of the mind that the curre nt crop of teachers are on average bad. Do kids not have…

The only resources needed are books and chalkboards, pencil and paper. These are cheap.

My public high school installed a competition diving pool. Did that improve education there? Not a whit. It was nice for the diving team, though, which was 6 girls.

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

#428

Post by andrewla » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 6:09 PM UTC

cyberlurker wrote: post #97

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…

In NYC they also flatten all Asians into one group and say the “gifted” programs aren't diverse enough because a high percentage are Asian. As if implying Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean, etc. all have the same life experience, cultures, advantages, disadvantages… Also you nailed it on the property tax point. Often overlooked as the biggest issue with education. A similar sized home in a good school district ca…

NYC schools are not funded by property taxes.

The city and state fund the DoE and that money is disbursed to schools throughout the district without relationship to the geographic source of the funds. PTAs (especially in wealth neighborhoods) also contribute huge amounts of money to their local schools, often even paying for the salary of extra teachers or classroom assistants.

NYC schools are terrible for any number other reasons, but the property tax argument does not apply.

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

#429

Post by lazide » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 6:09 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.

Eh, private schools right now have the parents as the customers. The parents generally have their incentives oriented towards well educated, well behaving kids and want it for not be too expensive. And can judge quality and make individual purchasing decisions, and have no incentive to waste funds.

If the public starts paying (blindly!) for it, the incentives change. Private schools would become more like private prisons probably, and we’d be back where we started.

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

#430

Post by 6502nerdface » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 6:10 PM UTC

danans wrote: post #194

willcipriano wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've taken a close look at the numbers for individual schools in my tri-state area, (NY, NJ, PA) and from my estimate it seems that lower performing schools far and away have the highest per student budgets.

It is much more expensive to teach and support the children at lower performing schools than it is at higher performing schools. Lower performing schools are also providing significant front line social support services for the communities they serve, including food, trauma counseling, sometimes medical intervention, extreme behavior management. None of that is cheap. Students/families at higher performing schools ha…

I wonder if another factor could be:

- in higher performing schools, parents fund a number expenses directly through a very active PTA, so those expenses don't show up in the school's official spending per pupil, while

- at lower performing schools with less active and more impoverished PTAs, those same expenses must be funded by school budgets, driving up their official per-pupil spending.