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

731–740 of 922 posts

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

#731

Post by generalizations »

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).

I don't plan to ever need to do math in hexadecimal without a calculator. Far as decimals go, I actually did get away with solving the multiplication problems on the fly...so no, memorization isn't necessary.

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

#732

Post by silicon2401 »

whatevenisthat wrote: post #710
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 we are dealing with a group which is motivated by ideology. It's a religion to them. Some of them have doubled down on woke-speak around "equity" for so long, that they cannot backtrack and accept that merit and performance exist. Doing this would put them at odds with their current in-group and likely their only source of…

> Because we are dealing with a group which is motivated by ideology. It's a religion to them.

There really is no simpler way to say it than this, and it raises the question: how do you even make progress with a group who bases decisions on dogma rather than reason?

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

#733

Post by slothtrop »

DAlperin wrote: post #525
slothtrop wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then it's not enough to say it, show the numbers. Considering the tiny demographic it serves, I'd imagine the cuts on the basis of inequality are a convenient excuse to slash spending, and not increase it otherwise.

There's no relationship between gutting gifted programs and either alleviating inequality or improving outcomes of all other students. If you want to do the latter, that requires it's own intervention.

This basically apes the rhetoric of the right-wing on the part of social spending. "We can't afford it, it should be spent on other things". Same mentality.

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

#734

Post by slothtrop »

Joel_Mckay wrote: post #599
slothtrop wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> inflicting misery Is that what you suppose gifted programs do?

From one perspective, isolation or artificial peer group selection can lead to aberrant moral, social, and cognitive development. There is more to life than worksheets and exams.

There's no evidence that gifted programs are associated with those phenomenons. There is evidence that it helps students excel.

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

#735

Post by user_7832 »

silicon2401 wrote: post #732
whatevenisthat wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Why can't we just admit it and quit trying to make people who are unique the same?" Because we are dealing with a group which is motivated by ideology. It's a religion to them. Some of them have doubled down on woke-speak around "equity" for so long, that they cannot backtrack and accept that merit and performance exist. Doing this would put them at odds with their current in-group and likely their only source of…

> Because we are dealing with a group which is motivated by ideology. It's a religion to them. There really is no simpler way to say it than this, and it raises the question: how do you even make progress with a group who bases decisions on dogma rather than reason?

> There really is no simpler way to say it than this, and it raises the question: how do you even make progress with a group who bases decisions on dogma rather than reason?

If someone were to not have read the above comments, this argument could be very easily used to support the opposing (political) stance as well. I suppose most humans are just emotion driven - though this need not be a bug.

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

#736

Post by _-david-_ »

corrral wrote: post #372
_-david-_ wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not who you were replying to, but my grandmother was a teacher and specifically wanted to work in one of these schools to try to help the students in bad situations. She stopped teaching a while ago, but much of this likely still applies. Basically, the students frequently don't do their homework, students would just not show up to class or outright just drop out, students misbehave more frequently (including violent…

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.

I don't think you are correct. Parents not caring is probably one of the biggest issues.

My grandmother would call a student's parents on their home and work numbers multiple times over multiple weeks. She would even provide her home number and say they could call anytime, day or night.

Do you think she frequently got calls back? If you can't even take 20 minutes to call your kid's teacher then you don't care about getting your kid out of an area with bad policing and justice system, racism and bad jobs.

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

#737

Post by TameAntelope »

sokoloff wrote: post #692
TameAntelope wrote: post #676

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no adjustment whatsoever possible that will accurately further qualify/disqualify students from a gifted program, that is correct. Simply "tightening" the existing fuzzy criteria will only further arbitrarily limit qualified students.

That's exactly my point. There's a system today that has some amount of arbitrariness to it. Tweaking that system slightly is almost surely arbitrariness-preserving, likely not increasing or decreasing it significantly.

My point is that it's increasing the arbitrariness by further constricting the qualified students pool.

Instead, accept they're all qualified insofar as they would maximally benefit from advanced lessons, and favor students for whom this may be their only opportunity to get ahead.

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

#738

Post by swearwolf »

calculatte wrote: post #331
hn_version_0023 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knowing nothing about this topic other than hearsay and the opinions of my elderly parents… both of them teachers in public high schools… Do these per-pupil funding numbers have any meaning when your home and community are broken and one or both of your parents is an addict or incarcerated? Because it seems to me we’ve been acting with intent as a society to keep the families, homes, and communities of everyone not w…

Every group claims the same targeting. "Everyone not white" is just being divisive. Go to a poor white area and you'll see the same drug addiction, broken home, incarceration problems. Is this your job to fix? Do you think the government has the inclination or the possibility of success in addressing these issues? All that shows is the natural tendency toward persecution complexes and blaming failure on factors out o…

You see the same things in both places because people are poor in both places. Often due to structural issues that the government could absolutely influence. For example, they could not sign a deal like NAFTA and keep manufacturing jobs within their borders. The could also provide social housing, subsidize medical care and education, set a reasonable minimum wage, etc. The government has enormous potential to positively impact people’s lives, but it doesn’t. It used to, but not anymore, because we’ve all been infected with Reagan’s “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.” brain worm. This mythology is bone deep in our national consciousness, to the point that we can’t even imagine an alternative anymore, even though examples of other countries doing it are scattered around the world. Government intervention can absolutely address the nihilistic tendencies you’ll often find amongst the multi-generational poor! It can do so by actually giving them an opportunity (en masse, not as the one person who made it out) to be participants in a world where they have dignity and inherent value, which is not the world they live in today. They won’t be fixed overnight, but they didn’t get that way overnight either! It took decades of disinvestment and neglect, and it will probably take a generation to make a meaningful impact. But it can and should be done.

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

#739

Post by [deleted] »

jaywalk wrote: post #376
wbsss4412 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would imagine that the people who are pushing for more equitable systems would argue that would should give people who lack that kind of parental support more help. Why should a child suffer simply because they were born into a less supportive family environment?

No child should suffer, and I think everyone can very easily agree on that point. But children born into a less supportive family environment are going to suffer for it. So maybe we should focus more energy on figuring out why less supportive family environments exist in the first place, and work on fixing those issues? I don't know. I'm no expert and definitely don't have the answers.

[deleted]

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

#740

Post by michaelt »

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?

Precisely.

Our entire society is organised so that even university graduates are very rarely called upon to sum two single-digit numbers.

Adding up purchases in a shop? The till does it automatically. Admittedly, the cashier will need to be able to make up change promptly - but a customer needn't check their change.

Paying for parking? There will be a sign listing how much money you need to put in for 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours and so on.

Picking 14 items in a warehouse? You only need to count one at a time. There's a chance to speed things up by picking 2 packs of 6 plus 2 singles? Then the computer will print that on the pick list. No computer? Then the boss will print a sign with a lookup table like "14 items -> 2 six packs + 2 singles" and tape it to the shelf.

Trying to figure out whether you can get 9 people to lunch in two cars, one of which is kinda small? Add it up on your fingers, or keep your mouth shut and one of the other 8 people will figure it out.

Just don't get into board gaming :)

Post reply on HN