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

481–490 of 922 posts

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

#481

Post by dgfitz »

corrral wrote: post #372
_-david-_ wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not who you were replying to, but my grandmother was a teacher and specifically wanted to work in one of these schools to try to help the students in bad situations. She stopped teaching a while ago, but much of this likely still applies. Basically, the students frequently don't do their homework, students would just not show up to class or outright just drop out, students misbehave more frequently (including violent…

IMO the central problem with US schools isn't the schools . It's our broken policing and justice system, our bad social safety net, and our poor worker protection, among other things like the ongoing consequences of racist city planning. We will never move the needle very much, on school quality, by focusing on schools.

My pet theory that 2-parent homes make a world of difference. Maybe if there was reliable male birth control there wouldn’t be so many single moms working 3 jobs because dad left and the children don’t have a second parental role model, or even a first because they never see mom.

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

#482

Post by social_quotient »

calculatte wrote: post #331
hn_version_0023 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knowing nothing about this topic other than hearsay and the opinions of my elderly parents… both of them teachers in public high schools… Do these per-pupil funding numbers have any meaning when your home and community are broken and one or both of your parents is an addict or incarcerated? Because it seems to me we’ve been acting with intent as a society to keep the families, homes, and communities of everyone not w…

Every group claims the same targeting. "Everyone not white" is just being divisive. Go to a poor white area and you'll see the same drug addiction, broken home, incarceration problems. Is this your job to fix? Do you think the government has the inclination or the possibility of success in addressing these issues? All that shows is the natural tendency toward persecution complexes and blaming failure on factors out o…

I agree and it seems we are learning the cost and complexity of the state trying to fill the vacuum of parent/family responsibilities.

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

#483

Post by BurningFrog »

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…

Call me a radical, but to me "our race laws don't have the best categories" is the wrong level to deal with this.

The US has never been without race laws, so I see how it's hard to imagine not having them, but that is what I think is needed.

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

#484

Post by wbsss4412 »

lliamander wrote: post #449
wbsss4412 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That’s a very low bar if you take population level disparities and assume it’s a lack of equity causing this Are racial disparities socially determined or not?

Thomas Sowell has a great book on the subject called Discrimination and Disparities . There are interviews where he goes over the high-level ideas in the book if you don't have time to read it, but the basic punchline is that this: no two populations have ever been equal, and only sometimes is that because of some form of oppression or because of genetic differences. There are a multitude of cultural and environmenta…

> unless equality of outcome is your goal those differences shouldn't bother you.

I’m sorry, but this simply doesn’t follow.

The premise: that there are a multitude of things that lead to to disparities (even just random chance). If disparities are random then yes, that’s not a problem I’m going to get tussled up about.

But it’s not a matter of “it could be anything”. We have strong evidence that it is oppression, and when that is the case, that I do have reason to care about, and it’s about opportunity not outcome.

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

#485

Post by sokoloff »

tqi wrote: post #385
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 "G…

Is math ability centered above Algebra I among 13 year olds, though? I would wager Algebra I is well above the center of the curve in that age group.

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

#486

Post by anthonypasq »

abfan1127 wrote: post #139
whatshisface wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you let students attend any classes they wanted, I bet they would sort themselves appropriately. The rowdy kids won't want to be in a classroom where everyone is quiet and the teacher is explaining the central limit theorem.

but then the rowdy kids get left behind. You could argue that the rowdy kids are getting left behind either way.

a lot of rowdy kids simply do not have the underlying personality to succeed in a classroom setting and thats perfectly fine. we need to do a better job of sorting kids earlier like they do in Germany for example.

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

#487

Post by minsc_and_boo »

qgin wrote: post #344
derac wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. It is not unacceptable when white children have opportunities. It is unacceptable when black children do not.

There’s two ways to equity. 1. Make sure everyone has access to opportunities. 2. Get rid of all opportunities People are going for the second one despite the fact that it doesn’t actually improve anyone’s life. Its like solving homelessness by burning down all houses.

False dichotomy.

It's like countering homelessness by enforcing that a portion of housing is accessible, affordable low-income housing. People sitting in high-income housing then make frivolous statements about all the houses being burnt down, or how we should also remove public basketball courts because of the NBA.

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

#489

Post by sokoloff »

anthonypasq wrote: post #473
lights0123 wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

i dont think so, thats all algebra 2

That is not my experience. Systems of 2 linear equations ("intersecting lines") and quadratics were definitely part of Algebra I (and maybe even pre-Algebra).

I'm 95+% sure that basic exponentiation was also part of Algebra I.

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

#490

Post by zozbot234 »

dgfitz wrote: post #481
corrral wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO the central problem with US schools isn't the schools . It's our broken policing and justice system, our bad social safety net, and our poor worker protection, among other things like the ongoing consequences of racist city planning. We will never move the needle very much, on school quality, by focusing on schools.

My pet theory that 2-parent homes make a world of difference. Maybe if there was reliable male birth control there wouldn’t be so many single moms working 3 jobs because dad left and the children don’t have a second parental role model, or even a first because they never see mom.

It's a factor among many. The other POV is that single parenthood matters less than you might expect, because others in the broader family or community can contribute to raising those kids. Which might actually work if you had that community orientation in the first place!
Post reply on HN