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

431–440 of 922 posts

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

#431

Post by wbsss4412 »

jaywalk wrote: post #376
wbsss4412 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would imagine that the people who are pushing for more equitable systems would argue that would should give people who lack that kind of parental support more help. Why should a child suffer simply because they were born into a less supportive family environment?

No child should suffer, and I think everyone can very easily agree on that point. But children born into a less supportive family environment are going to suffer for it. So maybe we should focus more energy on figuring out why less supportive family environments exist in the first place, and work on fixing those issues? I don't know. I'm no expert and definitely don't have the answers.

What if equal access to educational opportunities is a contribution to the problem of less supportive families? Hence why we are having this conversation.

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

#432

Post by nscalf »

It's probably time to stop letting people in our society that are not building up systems terrorize the rest of us with scarcely hidden threats of slandering your name as a racist. There is nothing racist about having a merit based system within education. If the problem is that it is not entirely merit based, the solution comes from improving the on ramp, not from destroying the program. We should treat people who want to tear down systems like this as radicals trying to cause harm, not well-meaning individuals trying to build equality. We have been increasing equality for decades by building up systems, and to act like everything in existence now is racist and invalid is absurd.

My experience with public school gifted programs was simple. The gifted program was not significantly better in what they taught, or how they taught it. The gifted programs only major advantage was that the people who were there wanted to be there, and worked to do well. This allowed us to move faster, and go deeper into topics. In non-gifted classes, students could not care less about what the class was doing that day and hated that they were trapped there. Some students definitely worked hard in non-gifted classes, but in my experience, that was the exception.

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

#433

Post by DougN7 »

bsuvc wrote: post #303
corrral wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever had a 3rd grader threaten to stab you, and look like they really mean it? A second grader call you the c-word? That kind of thing happening basically every day, often multiple times a day? Credible threats of gang violence on a regular basis. School-wide lockdowns with some regularity due to threats of violence, or violence that has actually occurred. Admin with extremely limited options to deal with any of this…

Hmm, I can't imagine having to deal with those things. People don't act like that where I live.

I’ve recently become friends with someone from the inner city “hood”. It’s just unbelievable. Like someone below said, it’s not about race as much as poverty. The sad thing from what I’ve seen is the culture is self-destructive. Instead of trying to help each other up and out, many pull others back down (economically, socially, etc). I used to naively think I had answers, but after seeing the breath and depth of the problem I have no idea what would help.

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

#434

Post by WalterBright »

mymllnthaccount wrote: post #122
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.

It's so funny to me that people treat businesses and government so differently. Want results from your start up? Find someone to invest in it. Want results from a government program? Well, we need to cut out all the wasteful spending.

business: when it doesn't get results, budget gets cut

government: when it doesn't get results, budget gets increased

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

#435

Post by bart_spoon »

whatshisface wrote: post #40
derac wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unacceptably white is still a horrible way to phrase this. Is the NBA unacceptably black? Why don't we remove basketball courts from inner cities and cut off black kid's feet /s eye roll BTW, I realize he is arguing for the opposite of this. edit: If you think I am racist or something let me spell it out as I did in another comment: It is not unacceptable when white children have opportunities. It is unacceptable whe…

That is a bad analogy because the NBA is not the only accessible path to a stable middle class life while school, for many people, is.

One need not be in a gifted program in school in order to achieve a stable middle class life. In fact, the vast majority of those with stable middle class lives didn't participate in gifted programs.

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

#436

Post by UncleMeat »

mmmpop wrote: post #273
UncleMeat wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are always individual cases that work out. Even in systems with extreme oppression, members of oppressed groups succeed. But it is still a problem if there is a large and observable statistical disparity between groups for no compelling reason. Consider a toy admissions criteria where students go through the same process as today but students with black hair have to also win a game of rock paper scissors. There…

I think what I'm getting at is that the "rich White affluent people gave me a chance" and I "didn't behave" according to their standards, so they pushed me out. I was too young to understand, but perhaps they had a fair point? I was well-behaved and bright, but coarse I suppose. I was too poor to participate in the fancy science trips, couldn't afford class materials, constantly late, and homework never got done due…

I think it depends on what the rules are. A lot of rules encode social and class norms rather than actually achieve a pedagogical goal. Classic examples of this is forcing kids to use "proper" grammar rather than AAVE or forcing left-handed kids to write with the right hand.

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

#437

Post by [deleted] »

derac wrote: post #11

Gifted programs are "unacceptably white". WTF does that mean? I had to pass essentially an IQ test to get placed into those classes. For me, it made a big difference in being engaged in schoolwork when every class consisted of reiterating content for days which I had mastered in minutes. Edit: I removed "I don't see what race has to do with it." I do see how race can affect this when the gatekeeper is a teacher with…

[deleted]

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

#438

Post by sokoloff »

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?

Or allow that school to recruit better teachers over time or have fewer students per teacher.

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

#439

Post by havblue »

paulpauper wrote: post #28

The kids of elites and the rich will always have opportunities regardless of aptitude. Is it any surprise actor's kids tend to also have many opportunities in acting. Opposing gifted education, acceleration, etc. seems like another way of pulling up the ladder, even if it's framed as being well-intentioned.

I think a lot of the equity advocates fail to admit things just aren't working right now. So if you say you'll just pull your kids and send them private, they'll say that we need to force all kids into public schools. There's no middle ground.

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

#440

Post by kube-system »

fein wrote: post #72
Robotbeat wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> with similar test scores > with similar test scores > WITH SIMILAR TEST SCORES

I had to look around for the source of this, and I can't find the "with similar test scores" part in the Vanderbuilt site article on the Vanderbuilt study this is based on. It says 66% less likely, but the "similar test scores" part isn't in the same paragraph. I really dislike that it is so difficult to find the source of these statements in modern media, as the news articles I read didn't even cite the study, I had…

> Misleading at best as the "tests" they are talking about are not gifted assessment tests, but rather standardized testing which I don't think is that great of an indicator. I was in the gifted program during middle school, and that was predicated by a few admittance tests, one of them being IQ.

Yes, a student who studies hard may get good academic test scores, but may do poorly on gifted admittance tests. They're testing two different things. The former tests ability to understand class content, the other tests the ability to solve problems which are not part of school curriculum.

Post reply on HN