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

721–730 of 922 posts

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

#721

Post by AmericanChopper »

walnutclosefarm wrote: post #377

If I’m leading a system in which the population of eighth graders taking Algebra I has a disproportionate number of white and Asian students, then eliminating Algebra I as an offering for eighth graders looks like an obvious pathway to equity. Well, yes, if by equity you mean the race composition of every class equals the race composition of the school as a whole. But shouldn't equity in education mean that every stu…

> But shouldn't equity in education mean that every student gets the instruction and support they need to achieve their potential, insofar as the school is able to provide it, without respect to their race, class or sex?

You’re taking about equality. Equity is always just a euphemism for equality of outcome. Which can only ever be achieved by lowering the outcomes of top performs to the same level as the lowest performers.

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

#722

Post by s1artibartfast »

DAlperin wrote: post #621
havblue wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if I agree with the premise that the gifted students keep all the resources to themselves. If anything they should require less mentoring, less discipling and their parents should be more likely to be involved financially and in PTA.

> and their parents should be more likely to be involved financially and in PTA. And when gifted programs become screeners of affluence then there are going to be financially involved parents in the PTA which benefits the whole school. But if all of those parents end up at the "good" schools then those schools have considerably more funding (on top of the additional funding from the DOE) to allow them to actually edu…

Now you are talking not only about a redistribution of taxed dollars but charitable time and donations from parents that want to give them to their children to less advantaged children.

Putting limits on how much a parent can help and support their child is a much more difficult ethical and political argument to make

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

#723

Post by [deleted] »

robonerd wrote: post #274
lupire wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who needs a better teacher? The gifted student or the remedial student? Gifted students (at least up to middle school) don't need special teachers (an 8th grade math teacher could teach gifted 6th graders), they just need challenging material and peers to keep them motivated and study with.

> Who needs a better teacher? The gifted student or the remedial student? The well-behaved students. Good teachers are wasted on troublemakers and class clowns, regardless of their IQ. And if a dim student who scores poorly on IQ tests knows how to sit quietly and behave themself, I think good teachers will help them a lot.

[deleted]

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

#724

Post by googlryas »

dgfitz wrote: post #696
googlryas wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why would that be hard to understand?

Because mainstream culture generally looks down upon "deadbeat dads" and doesn't celebrate impregnating multiple women?

Certainly, the first time someone told me they had 12 kids through 8 women, with more kids on the way, I was completely shocked. Even more shocked when I realized he was bragging about his masculinity, not lamenting "What have I done?!"

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

#725

Post by s1artibartfast »

ricardobeat wrote: post #456
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…

Thanks for sharing this perspective. I was wondering why it seems to be such a big topic for the US. Where I’m from, gifted classes are for 1% of the kids and about socializing and keeping them engaged - their life outcomes are not statistically likely to be better than the “normal” children either way.

What is the point of gifted programs where you are from if they confer no benefits to the children engaged in them?

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

#726

Post by kbelder »

DAlperin wrote: post #669
havblue wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think public schools are underfunded? Any chart I've seen has shown the opposite, if you compare our schools to other countries'.

Having been in public school for most of my life I can say unequivocally: yes. It is not uncommon for teachers to purchase books and classroom supplies out of pocket since there simply is not enough funding.

I think it's a combination. School districts are funded exceedingly well in our country. School classrooms are funded poorly.

The money evaporates before it reaches them.

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

#727

Post by vorpalhex »

mjburgess wrote: post #585
vorpalhex wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In practice there are strong cultural aspects to it Study, do your homework, behave? What "strong cultural aspect" do you see?

That's quite funny... do you really not see it? Study the topics we think are important in the ways we think are important behaving in the ways we think are important. No schooling in human history looks like the schooling you're describing, yet you treat is as some concequence of nature.

English, math and history? Like liberal arts educations aren't THAT newfangled. I realize it's not sophist philosophy but maybe a bit more well rounded.

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

#728

Post by westurner »

zozbot234 wrote: post #718
realfun wrote: post #702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

IDK why we'd assume that there's a different cognitive process for learning mathematics with radix 10 than with radix 16?

Mathematics_education#Methods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_education#Methods :

> [...] Rote learning: the teaching of mathematical results, definitions and concepts by repetition and memorisation typically without meaning or supported by mathematical reasoning. A derisory term is drill and kill. In traditional education, rote learning is used to teach multiplication tables, definitions, formulas, and other aspects of mathematics.

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

#729

Post by s1artibartfast »

DAlperin wrote: post #554
luxuryballs wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is where I think things are kind to vary wildly between different regions and districts so we have to be specific make sure we are comparing apples to apples. A gift program like you describe “by name only” isn’t a gifted program at all, that doesn’t mean “real” ones don’t exist. It’s like saying the funding for baseballs is not producing any baseball players meanwhile they only use the baseballs for playing ten…

Sure but the issues faced here in New York are not unique, just particularly visible due to the size. The systemically racist systems exist everywhere and I would be willing to bet money that in the majority of districts and regions where gifted programs exist will have absurdly low percentages of brown and black students. And again, that is not because brown and black students aren't as smart. The systems of this co…

How do you feel about gifted programs in school districts where black and brown student largely don't exist?

OR for that matter, how about the inverse?

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

#730

Post by lr1970 »

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…

> I don't know whether Algebra I is above or below what eighth graders can be expected to do

I went to school in Eastern Europe in the eighties. We had algebra (and separately geometry) since 7-th grade. Also physics, chemistry and biology. And it was an ordinary secondary school. Some kids were struggling, also depends on how good/bad the teacher was. But majority was coping with the load alright.

Post reply on HN