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)

#741

Post by 908B64B197 » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 9:09 PM UTC

_gabe_ wrote: post #629

I would have loved to continue reading this, but he immediately claimed that "Black students are 66% less likely to be identified as gifted compared to white students with similar test scores". I clicked the link that supposedly contained the paper to back this up. The link takes you here[0]. That's a bit annoying since it doesn't take me directly to the source, but that's fine. Then I read the article and it says: "…

> A black student whose test scores were on par with a white peer was still half as likely to be assigned to a gifted classroom.

... Which would indeed be explained by the lack of gifted program at schools (can't assign a kid to a class that doesn't exists).

But there's also something the authors are omitting here: parental involvement. It's still the parent's decision to place their kid in a gifted program. And if there's no gifted program at the child's current school the parent will have to take the initiative to transfer his child to another school (and the child will probably object to it seeing as it means losing all his friends).

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

#742

Post by yarg » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 9:09 PM UTC

The fact that this case even needs to be made is insane.

There's a degree of nobility in the ideal of "no child left behind" - but childhood potential is not democratically distributed.

The smartest kids in schools should not be left to flounder on account of those who can't keep up.

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

#743

Post by dgfitz » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 9:09 PM UTC

googlryas wrote: post #724

dgfitz wrote: post #696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?!"

Oh, I guess it’s me then, I wasn’t surprised at all when I encountered this.

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

#744

Post by hedora » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 9:09 PM UTC

wbsss4412 wrote: post #159

abfan1127 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Equity of opportunity is acceptable. Equity of outcome is a bullshit goal.

Equality of outcome is not the goal of equity. That’s a straw man argument created by its detractors. People point out disparities as evidence that there aren’t equal opportunities in society. The conservative position is simply to assert that equality of opportunity exists cuz America, and if you question that you are a communist who just wants everyone to be the same.

I'm all for equity of opportunity. However, the people California has chosen to set our curriculum are explicitly working toward equality of outcome.

They say they don't believe that any children are more talented than any other children, and are advocating eliminating standard "advanced" courses, such as calculus, from the high school curriculum. The only classes that would be available in their proposal are the current remedial math track.

I think you've confused "straw man argument created by its detractors" with "the actual concrete plan being established by its proponents".

The (successful) proponents of equity based teaching are so far outside the mainstream that it's an honest mistake. (I made it, and now I'm furious.)

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

#745

Post by dahfizz » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 9:10 PM UTC

jacobolus wrote: post #420

robonerd wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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…

> It is entirely natural for children to “clown around” in a boring setting

Murder, rape, and eating your children is natural. That's not a good justification. Perhaps there is a way to help children rise above these base instincts instead of giving into them?

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

#746

Post by Dracophoenix » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 9:12 PM UTC

jaywalk wrote: post #49

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…

So what happens when we decide "everyone is gifted" and teach all students at the level that would have been taught only to gifted students before? Seems like the obvious outcome would be a lot more students who struggle, necessitating a slower track for them. So instead of regular and gifted classes, you have regular and "non-gifted" (for lack of a better term) classes. This is why equity is a bullshit goal.

> So what happens when we decide "everyone is gifted"

This doesn't seem to be much of a problem in countries like Russia, Ukraine, Hungary, China, Malaysia, Singapore, Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, etc. which have much tougher cirricula for their average students than the average American public school. And before someone makes the funding argument, the US pays about double the cost of education that Japan does for dismal results.

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

#747

Post by wbsss4412 » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 9:15 PM UTC

MockObject wrote: post #549

wbsss4412 wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Culture is socially determined in the sense that culture is simply the collective actions and decisions that a group of people make. Reading the intent behind that statement, though, that Nigerians have succeeded in America despite any hinderances they may have faced due to wider societies treatment of black people, that would be somewhat outside of the framework of what I am talking about. The construction here is,…

Rewriting "culture" as "they are the reason for their own problems” seems rather uncharitable, and unhelpful to the discussion. Why are you doing that, given that it's not adding any clarity? > having found the statistical outlier that proves your argument Well, why are they a statistical outlier? If you ask Nigerians, they'll tend to credit their culture. Do you have a different explanation? > Is it possible that Ni…

> Rewriting "culture" as "they are the reason for their own problems” seems rather uncharitable, and unhelpful to the discussion. Why are you doing that, given that it's not adding any clarity?

I was under the impression that it did add clarity, so I find your question odd.

What would be the charitable interpretation of the statement “socioeconomic disparities between black Americans and white Americans are due to their respective cultures”?

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

#748

Post by wbsss4412 » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 9:17 PM UTC

MockObject wrote: post #655

wbsss4412 wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We clearly have different interpretations of that metaphor. The point is to demonstrate agency over the systems we create. What’s the flip side of that scenario? People aren’t given stools to stand on and tall people get to watch while short people don’t? Who built the fence? Why is it that height? Why aren’t there bleachers? Is just sitting there doing nothing equality of opportunity somehow?

That cartoon literally ends with the resolution of all three heads being at the same height. It's depicting the equality of their outcomes. And it's hailing it as the goal to be achieved. The point isn't that stools are handed out demonstrating agency, but that they're handed out with the goal of outcome equality.

What’s the parallel of that metaphor wherein only equality of opportunity is sought, though?

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

#749

Post by UncleMeat » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 9:18 PM UTC

concordDance wrote: post #516

UncleMeat wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the systems which identify students and enable them to meet the admissions requirements are massively unequal. I'll give an example. I attended a gifted program starting in 3rd grade. I went to an elementary school for 1st and 2nd grade that was almost entirely white with some asian kids. Part of the mechanism for selecting students for the gifted program was a letter from the student's counselor, teacher, an…

For those interested in what what Scott Aaronson said: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=4979 > In a world-historic irony, the main effect of this “solution” will be to drastically limit the number of Asian students, while drastically increasing (!!!) the number of White students. The proportion of Black and Hispanic students is projected to increase a bit but remain small.

The fun part about this is that TJHSST did edit the admissions process so we can actually test Aaronson's claim.

From class of 2024 to class of 2025.

* Economically disadvantaged students: 0.62% to 25.09%

* Black students: 1.23% to 7.09%

* Hispanic students: 3.29% to 11.27%

* White students: 17.70% to 22.36%

* Asian students: 73.05% to 54.36%

The raw increase in black students is larger than the raw increase in white students. But Aaronson predicted a "drastic increase" in white students and for the number of black students to increase by "a bit." Oops.

You can slice stats further. The number of asian students who are also on free and reduced lunch increased between years.

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

#750

Post by jimbob45 » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 9:21 PM UTC

protomyth wrote: post #666

jimbob45 wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say I learned much more from the elementary school and middle school sports programs I participated in than I ever learned from the gifted/talented programs I participated in. I find it to be a terrible shame that high school sports are so often limited in participation by elitism (e.g. basketball limited to 10 players, volleyball to ~12, cheerleading to ~20). I would wholeheartedly support removing limits on hig…

Regardless of the usefulness of sports in schools (and I do believe they are useful), you point out that they are "often limited in participation by elitism" much as I suppose the critics of gifted & talented programs would say of those programs. If so, then they must be studied to make sure they don't disproportionately exclude certain racial groups. If racial imbalance is a guideline for cancellation then it should…

In your equivalence, the "sport" is studying math (or something) and everyone is participating, simply on different levels. Your equivalence would only work if the non-gifted students weren't allowed to study anything at all.