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

681–690 of 922 posts

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

#681

Post by DaveExeter »

merpnderp wrote: post #243
wbsss4412 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Equity isn’t a bullshit goal. As is typical, the concept get confused because one assumes that gifted programs correctly track students based primarily on ability, whereas in my personal experience and looking at the data, they primarily track students based on socioeconomic status. It’s not about denying that some students have the ability to excel in subjects in comparison to their peers. The question is whether or…

Socioeconomic status tracks with academic ability because more well off parents are more likely to read to their kids, participate in their education, and get them help when they need it. It’s a lot like how being tall tracks with being in the NBA, it isn’t a requirement but it sure helps. One of the hardest pills for education policy advocates to swallow is how important parental involvement is. Instead of bitching…

>Socioeconomic status tracks with academic ability...

Wow. Wrong answer.

Socioeconomic status tracks with academic ability because wealthy people are smarter then poor people and their offspring do better because academic ability is genetic!

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

#682

Post by zozbot234 »

thegrimmest wrote: post #662
jacobolus wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Good teachers are wasted on troublemakers and class clowns It is entirely natural for children to “clown around” in a boring setting, and their lack of interest / trouble focusing reflects a societal (and school) failure to make school engaging and give them the appropriate challenges and direct feedback to keep their attention. Many of the greatest human breakthroughs were made by people who were squirmy and distr…

School was never meant to be "engaging". It's not recreation, it's work. The problem seems to be that we've lost the value of working hard and pushing through things we find dull and uninteresting, in order to attain a greater goal. Instead we expect everything to be engaging, stimulating and entertaining. Real world success is not like that - it's work - so better get into the habit early on.

> School was never meant to be "engaging".

That's backwards. A school that doesn't engage its students has failed at its most important goals, and the very best schools have always striven to be engaging. Often this was done in unconventional ways, such as directing the youngest students to memorize their pre-set "lessons" word for word and be able to literally chant them back to the teacher. Similarly "direct" yet effective instructional methods were just as common wrt. practical exercises and problem solving. There was no space for the modern fashionable truism that "constructing" one's education from scratch, with practically no involvement from an outside educator, is the only possible source of engagement.

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

#683

Post by whatevenisthat »

jaywalk wrote: post #107
hawk_ wrote: post #65

> Latinx It's hard to take anyone who uses this term seriously. Latinos can't even pronounce it or care for it.

Latinos almost universally despise it. It was made up by non-Hispanic leftists because... I don't know, something about not forcing gender? It's utterly ridiculous.

No post body was provided.

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

#684

Post by macspoofing »

scarmig wrote: post #531
macspoofing wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But what this means is the wealthier localities have more tax revenue and thus better schools. This can be a vicious cycle of improving property values by having better schools and thus generating more tax revenue and so on. No. This is a complete red-herring. Every school in the US is good enough to provide quality education. Every school in the US is staffed by good, well-trained teachers. Every child gets free te…

> Every school in the US is staffed by good, well-trained teachers Unfortunately, this really isn't the case. There are many good teachers, and most teachers are genuinely passionate, hard workers. But many teachers get into teaching not because of a mastery of their subject matter or even teaching but because they want to be paid babysitters, more or less. E.g. in Canada, which has similar issues, Ontario recently a…

>But many teachers get into teaching not because of a mastery of their subject matter or even teaching but because they want to be paid babysitters, more or less.

You're missing the forest for the trees. We're graduating kids who are functionally illiterate. That isn't a teacher problem. That isn't a school problem.

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

#686

Post by whatevenisthat »

__abc wrote: post #354

I moved my family as the town I lived in did exactly this. They also removed support programs for those falling behind vs racing ahead. All under the equity banner. The New town we moved to is great. Oldest kid in accelerated programs, accelerating. Younger kid got the support she needed to catch up. :chefs_kiss: Taking a step back, I don’t know how ‘equity’ got twisted into creating a lowering tide for all vs. a ris…

No post body was provided.

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

#687

Post by kurupt213 »

Eliminating gifted programs is insane. It makes way more sense to concentrate education resources on the children who will benefit the most.

Maybe more effort needs to go towards identifying these children earlier. A bright child is obvious, regardless of race.

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

#688

Post by nonameiguess »

glerk wrote: post #245
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…

As someone who didn't grow up in the American school system, I am a bit surprised that Algebra I in the 8th grade is considered "gifted education". If Algebra I is about solving linear equations with unknown variables, I am pretty sure I was taught this much earlier than 8th grade as part of the standard curriculum. But maybe this means something different in the United States.

It's actually not. It's not clear from the way the article is written, but he's talking about two different things, both of which various reform bodies have proposed eliminating. The first is "gifted and talented education" programs, which involve additional coursework and activities on top of normal schooling. I'm not going to claim I remember super well what we did at this point, but I do remember learning how to make donuts from scratch, holding mock trials, learning computer-aided design at a time the regular school system didn't even have computers yet, and taking the SAT in 6th grade. All of these happened either after school or in the summer.

The other thing is related to tracking. That is where Algebra comes in. Not all students will take it at the same time. Instead, students are segregated into separate tracks, one of which will start with Algebra in middle school and eventually end up taking Calculus by the end of high school. The other won't get to Algebra until high school and will never take Calculus at all.

These are separate phenomena, but the author here is drawing an analogy between the reasons given for eliminating both GATE programs and educational tracking systems (as in, both are seen as being racially biased).

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

#689

Post by ehvatum »

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…

> Why can't we just admit it and quit trying to make people who are unique the same?

Because this sentiment is exactly opposed to a dominant philosophical framework built upon the axiom that, because all people are exactly identical, any difference in outcome is necessarily the result of hidden power structures.

The replacement of “equality” with “equity” is a dead giveaway that you’re dealing with Marxism. Equality before the law and equality of opportunity are American principles, but they are fading as equality of outcome is held up as the only acceptable standard.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, an outspoken Soviet dissident, famously wrote: “Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free.”

Much greater energy and intelligence is required to advocate for equal opportunity as compared to equal outcomes, and much greater worldly experience is required to value equal opportunity as compared to equal outcomes. It will always be easy for politicians to set people against each other and dilute the common good by pushing Marxism. It is the path of least effort and greatest personal return for low quality leaders.

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

#690

Post by kurupt213 »

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…

Algebra 1 is a low bar for 8th grade. There isn’t any reason that shouldn’t be the standard expectation
Post reply on HN