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

521–530 of 922 posts

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

#521

Post by bcrosby95 »

brianwawok wrote: post #180
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…

The property tax leading to funding differences is part of the puzzle, but not all of the puzzle. In my random neck of the world we have roughly 4 school districts. 1) Public school 1. Covers most of the black and brown students of the area. 2) Public school 2. Covers most of the lower to middle class white students of the area. 3) Public school 3. Covers most of the higher class white students, especially families o…

> 3) Public school 3. Covers most of the higher class white students, especially families of a local high ranking private college.

I live in a place like this, except its a mix of middle and higher class students. The secret is simple: the rich parents pay for tutors for their kids. I know many families who have paid for tutors for their kids since kindergarten.

Be very wary of pursuing good school districts in rich neighborhoods. If you can't afford the price of admission into that neighborhood your kid is going to have problems keeping up.

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

#523

Post by jljljl »

908B64B197 wrote: post #171
jl6 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Math is racist” is not what is being claimed in link #2. It’s math instruction that they claim to be racist. I have no idea if this is true but it’s at least plausible.

The veneer is quite thin. There are even more radical proposals [0] they are trying to introduce in High School classes. It's hard not to see the real agenda past the shallow arguments against gifted programs [1]. This was an enlightening read to say the least. [0] https://criticallyconsciouscomputing.org/ [1] https://unherd.com/2022/02/anti-racism-betrays-asian-student...

What's the "radical" concern with [0]? Why wouldn't we want students to think critically about uses of technology and how they impact society, or make access to computer science more inclusive?

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

#524

Post by com2kid »

908B64B197 wrote: post #83
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…

> Gifted programs are "unacceptably white". You are only scratching the surface here. Some places had a hard time "proving" their gifted programs were "too white" so they started using the term "white and white-adjacent" to include Asian kids as well (often from impoverished background but that's another issue) in these stats [0]. > I don't see why race has anything to do with it. Buckle up. The SF school district is…

I grew up with a diverse group of friends.

The way math is taught is quite often racist. I've seen entire math textbooks based around examples featuring American sports. If you don't know the rules of American football, you are not going to understand any of the examples in the book. I spent a lot of time in school and college explaining various American sports rules to friends.

That is the most trivial of examples, but it is a hugely impactful one for a lot of people. I have seen large amounts of frustration because some math book author couldn't keep his favorite sports jargon from littering the entire book.

You have other biases as well that can make students feel like shit. Story problems about a working father and a stay at home mother, sounds like nothing for many people, but for quite a few kids being reminded again and again that "not having a dad" is unusual, well, why the hell is the math book doing that? Just stick to problems involving trains.

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

#525

Post by DAlperin »

slothtrop wrote: post #390
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.

> as though gifted programs take up a sizable chunk of funding rather than, you know, the schools.

I am saying that. "Gifted" programs and the schools that house them eat up a sizable chunk of funding.

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

#526

Post by giantg2 »

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…

"But what this means is the wealthier localities have more tax revenue and thus better schools."

This is largely a lie. It works like this in some states but not most. Most states, and the federal government allocate their funds in a way that balances that out by allocating more money to the poorer districts. In my state, the various quartiles recieve essentially the same overall funding (19k-20k per student).

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

#527

Post by bsimpson »

> Since when does equity mean everyone gets nothing

This is why equity programs are controversial. When skeptical people hear "equity," they think of the allegory about crabs in a bucket. Too often, instead of helping more crabs escape the bucket, our society creates policies that make it harder for any of them to escape the bucket, or pick and choose which crabs get to escape the bucket.

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

#528

Post by googlryas »

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.

Condoms are a very reliable form of male birth control. And, it may be hard to understand, but there are certain fairly popular subcultures where men brag about how many different kids they have with different women.

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

#529

Post by Joel_Mckay »

ars wrote: post #493
Joel_Mckay wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The highest IQ in US history belonged to a man that spent his life as a plumber by choice. According to several studies, the greatest predictor of early academic advancement is the financial status of the parents. While scientific hubris and narcissism tend to quickly dominate competitive environments in colleges, the irrational pretense of a meritocracy quickly degenerates when you enter the faculty area. Note that…

This: "the irrational pretense of a meritocracy" and this: "most academically successful students will do well regardless of the curriculum or instructor" Are contradictory - if the smarter students do well regardless, then it's not something in the school, home, or environment, that are making them do better. They are simply smarter, and that's not something you can create in other people.

You have omitted the temporal qualifier, then conflated academic and institutional career success.

A paradox can be tricky... and makes our biases perceivable.

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

#530

Post by NeutralCrane »

jl6 wrote: post #120
908B64B197 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gifted programs are "unacceptably white". You are only scratching the surface here. Some places had a hard time "proving" their gifted programs were "too white" so they started using the term "white and white-adjacent" to include Asian kids as well (often from impoverished background but that's another issue) in these stats [0]. > I don't see why race has anything to do with it. Buckle up. The SF school district is…

“Math is racist” is not what is being claimed in link #2. It’s math instruction that they claim to be racist. I have no idea if this is true but it’s at least plausible.

You are correct, the general gist is they believe math instruction as racist, although they do at times make reference "Western math" and "Eurocentric math", whatever that is, and not math education, so it's a bit muddled. Regardless, take 15 minutes for yourself and you will see exactly how absurd the entire premise is. Here, on how word problems support white-supremacy:

> Often the emphasis is placed on learning math in the “real world,” as if our classrooms are not a part of the real world. This reinforces notions of either/or thinking because math is only seen as useful when it is in a particular context. However, this can result in using mathematics to uphold capitalist and imperialist ways of being and understandings of the world.

Repeat that for 83 pages. It's utterly surreal.

Post reply on HN