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

631–640 of 922 posts

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

#631

Post by bluedino »

WalterBright wrote: post #104
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…

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.

We spent $25 million on a new middle school (the existing buildings were 60+ years old). Still at the bottom of the rankings.

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

#632

Post by WalterBright »

kgwgk wrote: post #538
zozbot234 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> it's not hard to understand that "3 + 5 = 8" is not something that you'd need to literally memorize ‘Literally memorize’ as opposed to what? Counting your fingers?

Mentally count 5 6 7 8, sure. Why not?

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

#633

Post by nscalf »

jmull wrote: post #565
nscalf wrote: post #432

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 w…

The general issue with merit-based systems is the definition of merit. In practice there are strong cultural aspects to it, favoring characteristics the dominant group likes. So merit-based programs end up conferring the most advantages to those best conforming to the ideals of the dominant culture, strengthening the dominant culture. It's debatable (at least) whether that's a good thing... if you consider the domina…

So your issues with this is merit in and of itself? Please explain a better system for outcomes than putting in the work and earning the outcome. What is the alternative? My point wasn't that merit based systems are inherently flawless, it's that it's the best type of system we use and we should focus on improvements, not blindly calling it racist. There have been cases of cultural bias in merit based systems (word problems that assume some knowledge), but those end up being fairly obvious and now that is taken into account when developing standardized tests.

Even the use of the word racist here is nonsense. It implies malicious intent. For a test maker to not take into account every variation of culture is not racist, it's a negative side affect that can be improved on via iteration, not racist.

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

#634

Post by concordDance »

bgandrew wrote: post #187
Robotbeat wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Quoted post unavailable.

EVERY uncited statement needs double checking. Even on non-contentious topics.

Cited statements also need double checking. Frequently there's a game of telephone going on and the original research has been distorted.

This is not just a left wing phenomena, it's a phenomena anywhere you get people who aren't completely dispassionate observers (this excludes all advertiser funded media as they are incentivized to make things interesting and engaging).

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

#635

Post by com2kid »

chongli wrote: post #602
com2kid wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's take a math story problem. Give an upper class white kid a problem involving tennis scores, no problem. The kid will be able to easily understand what is being talked about, there isn't anything mentally jarring going on. Give a poor black kid a problem involving tennis scores, boom, problem. Odds of a poor black kid knowing how tennis scoring works, much less likely. My, largely well to do, neighborhood has te…

school administrators can choose an "older" test to purposefully get biased results Do you have any evidence of school administrators choosing "older" tests with biased questions about tennis scores or whatever other cultural trivia rich white kids are most likely to know about? I took an IQ test when I was a kid (early 90's) and it was a bunch of abstract questions involving mental rotations of objects, determining…

You can look at the history of IQ tests to see that older ones were indeed biased. New tests are designed to counteract those biases.

The point is that it is possible for corrupt administrators to bias test results, and the methods to do such are fairly easy to come across.

I'm not objecting to IQ tests, just pointing out that if a school wanted to create a test that only admitted certain students, that it is very possible to do such.

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

#636

Post by rats »

shagie wrote: post #426
retrac wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

can you link to an article detailing this issue? i'd love to dig deeper on this topic

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

#637

Post by AMerePotato »

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…

At my school, everyone was tested... but you needed a recommendation along with a high score to get in. I scored highly on the test year after year but was never given the recommendation necessary. I can't for sure say it was because I am a minority, but it definitely disenfranchised me

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

#638

Post by [deleted] »

thegrimmest wrote: post #604
mpalmer wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always have the same question for people like this. What do you want the world to look like 10, 20, 50 years from now, and how would the changes you're pushing for making immediately get us all closer to that?

I want the world to look look like a place where superficial racial difference is no more importantly regarded than differences in hair and eye colour are today. It seems rather clear to me that emphasizing these differences is taking us farther away from this world. How well-represented are blondes in executive leadership or government? Well, no one cares and no one is really counting, are they? That's the world I w…

[deleted]

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

#639

Post by mpalmer »

unethical_ban wrote: post #612
mpalmer wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always have the same question for people like this. What do you want the world to look like 10, 20, 50 years from now, and how would the changes you're pushing for making immediately get us all closer to that?

I have a question for people like you. Your comments sounds challenging to the parent comment. Why? The person is making pretty benign observations and opinions. Your comment seems to question their motives. We should all be asking the question you posed.

In the very first sentence, the parent comment refers to "people in our society". Those are the people I'm talking about.

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

#640

Post by kgwgk »

WalterBright wrote: post #632
kgwgk wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's not hard to understand that "3 + 5 = 8" is not something that you'd need to literally memorize ‘Literally memorize’ as opposed to what? Counting your fingers?

Mentally count 5 6 7 8, sure. Why not?

Well, it would be 3, 4, 5 ,6, 7, 8 unless you have memorized the commutative property ;-)
Post reply on HN