The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted education programs (2021) • Hacker News Board

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

#711

Post by mikece » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 8:31 PM UTC

harles wrote: post #98

mikece wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like the problem might be with those who are selected to identify the "gifted" students. I am less interested in racial correlations to being identified as "gifted" and more interested in attributes such as whether the student is from a two-parent household, whether they are considered poor, whether they attend a local school or are transported to one outside of their neighborhood, etc. I suspect that we lose…

This assumes being gifted is something innate and simply needs to be brought out. I don’t think that’s the case.

A person with a latent talent which isn't identified and developed has no advantage over the person who doesn't have the talent at all. If we as a society can't do what it reasonable and prudent to identify and nurture such people then we all lose.

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

#712

Post by jmull » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 8:31 PM UTC

ceeplusplus wrote: post #659

jmull wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: > Black students are 66% less likely to be identified as gifted compared to white students with similar test scores. Anyway, I believe your observation about the relative success that Asian kids have in merit-based programs supports my contention that they are significantly cultural in nature, right?

If hard work and persistence at school is cultural, then sure. Can you describe exactly what you mean by cultural in nature? That 66% number can entirely come from differences in what each culture values - black culture values athletics and music whereas Asian culture values education. And you see that play out in the end product - black people are "overrepresented" in sports and music while Asians are "overrepresent…

No post body was provided.

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

#713

Post by 908B64B197 » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 8:31 PM UTC

jljljl wrote: post #523

908B64B197 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If you read it you'll see it contains some gems "This focus on middle and high school, and on adolescents is intentional: 12-18 year olds are at a developmental stage where they are just beginning to comprehend their social worlds and their roles and positions in these social worlds. We believe that learning CS in social terms at these ages can not only help them integrate perspectives on computing into their new awareness of the world, but that the ideas in CS itself can help them better understand what it means to be human, to make decisions, and to have intelligence. Children in primary school may be too young for conversations about systemic social conflict. And while adults in postsecondary and beyond need to learn justice-centered CS literacy as well, many are less open to such learning, having hardened their political views as they enter adulthood. We likely need different methods for children and adults."

They know adults will be skeptical of what they teach (with reason). So they try to jam it down children’s throats where there’s little parental oversight. Disagree with it? Enjoy failing the class and the hit it will have on your GPA for college. And they aren’t even trying to hide it.

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

#714

Post by 908B64B197 » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 8:32 PM UTC

NeutralCrane wrote: post #530

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.

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 ma…

> this can result in using mathematics to uphold capitalist and imperialist ways of being and understandings of the world.

This explains why soviet mathematicians were (and still are) considered among the best in the world.

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

#715

Post by pvg » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 8:32 PM UTC

derac wrote: post #652

dang wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just one two-word phrase, and putting torque on it that distorts the gist of the whole article is not a good direction for threads. That's why we have this guideline: " Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I appreciate the rule and that is fair. I do think putting extremely inflammatory racial language front and center is notable. Particularly when it is so casual and so many people feel like it is unobjectionable as can be seen in the replies. I will refrain from this sort of comment in the future though. Sorry dang!

It's only 'extremely inflammatory racial language' if you pluck it out of its context and misquote it.

The current population of students we identify as academically gifted and talented is unacceptably whiter and wealthier than the actual student population of academically gifted and talented students should be.

This is pretty vanilla, nearly tautological stuff unless you believe academic talent is some sort of inherent property of wealth or whiteness.

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

#716

Post by slowmovintarget » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 8:33 PM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #605

mrtranscendence wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a similar story, and puberty was definitely an issue. I didn't get good at math until I was old enough to buy alcohol.

This could be read as "once I needed to figure out how much alcohol per hour I was earning, I learned math".

Which means we just need to make kids play Factorio or Eve Online to instill the desire to be good at arithmetic. Granted, Eve Online would instill other behaviors that might not be so desirable...

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

#717

Post by corrral » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 8:36 PM UTC

thegrimmest wrote: post #704

corrral wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can both be true that a particular single-parent household is very successful, and that if you study an entire population and control other variables, single-parent households are less successful than two-parent households.

Yes it can, but it doesn't follow that these studies are justification for removing accountability from individuals, their households, culture, and practices. Nor does it follow that the solutions are not found in changes to individual behaviour.

> but it doesn't follow that these studies are justification for removing accountability from individuals, their households, culture, and practices.

Cool. I never called for that, so we're not disagreeing.

> Nor does it follow that the solutions are not found in changes to individual behaviour.

This is one of those things that's both true and useless.

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

#718

Post by zozbot234 » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 8:38 PM UTC

realfun wrote: post #702

mrtranscendence wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I agree. 3 + 5 = 8 isn't something you need to literally memorize, but if you don't memorize such facts of basic arithmetic you're at a disadvantage when it comes to doing homework and tests. It's easier and less error-prone to memorize 8*7 than it is to work it out manually every time you see it until it sticks. For what it's worth, I struggled with math in elementary school and especially high school…

Agreed. It does need memorization. Anyone who don't think so can try to add and multiply in hexadecimal, what is 0xA + 0xC and what is 0x8 * 0x6? It becomes quite obvious memorization is required when you try it in any other radix other than decimal(which is memorized already).

It might be quite obvious that memorization is convenient, but 'required' means "you can't do it any other way" and that's obviously incorrect.

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

#719

Post by ohCh6zos » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 8:39 PM UTC

dpbriggs wrote: post #327

adverbly wrote: post #127

Gifted programs threads on HN are the new flame war battlegrounds... turns people into an armchair geniuses, ready to post solutions based on some anecdotal data. I pity the actual researchers in these fields. Must be tough to work in an area that everyone has an opinion on.

Why exactly is that a bad thing? It's repetitive but most people here are - former children - attended public education - hated or loved aspects of that education Of course they're going to discuss ideas.

I don’t know but I suspect given the comments that a disproportionate number of HN posters may have been in gifted programs.

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

#720

Post by googlryas » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 8:42 PM UTC

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.

Couple this with the fact that the whole "Latin[aeox]" terms aren't even inclusive to begin with. They are generally are used to broadly describe "a person from central/south America", except they are entirely Euro-centric, as if Latinos showed up to uninhabited open land. More than likely, the Qʼeqchiʼ person from Guatemala, who barely speaks Spanish, who has 100% Mayan ancestry, doesn't self identify as "Latino".