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

781–790 of 922 posts

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

#781

Post by protomyth »

jimbob45 wrote: post #750
protomyth wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No. Both sports and gifted & talented programs require students that are more "gifted" at the activity to participate. If this elitist selection is bad for one then it is bad for the other.

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

#783

Post by selimthegrim »

lupire wrote: post #229
hintymad wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but raising the difficulty of every class to what the most advanced student is capable of is not the answer The most advanced students will find one way or another to educate themselves. I think our school systems should focus on the middle: the students who could realize their full potential if they are sufficiently challenged. They are the group that do not always get STEM naturally but can eventually get it if p…

What if those most advanced students don't have rich connected parents to expose them to educational opportunities? If schooling doesn't matter for the brightest students, why does everyone think Caltech is such a great school?

It is for grad school. Nobody in academia cares if you went there for undergrad.

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

#784

Post by jimbob45 »

erichocean wrote: post #776
jimbob45 wrote: post #750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

? Everyone in school studies math and reading. Everyone is participating, simply on different levels. I guess I don't understand your comment at all.

That's my point. Parent poster was saying that excluding students from high school sports was the same as excluding them from gifted programs. I countered by saying that, for the equivalence to work, the students wouldn't be able to study at all to be like exclusion from high school sports.

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

#785

Post by _3u10 »

thebooktocome wrote: post #17
_3u10 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t speak for everyone but they kept me from dropping out.

But would you (and the statistical student like you) have been better served by a different intervention? That’s the thing I’m curious about.

Gifted programs and advanced classes were what kept me in school, the only things that got my grades up tho were classes with rigid rules. I had one class and where if you showed up late once / didn’t hand in one assignment you failed.

I got straight As that semester. The rest of school was just min/max’ing to average out with a C and not do any homework.

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

#786

Post by jacobolus »

dahfizz wrote: post #775
jacobolus wrote: post #770

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think 6-year-olds not paying attention to a boring classroom is comparable to rape and cannibalism?

No, I think "it's natural" is a bad defense of both.

Trying to prevent small children from squirming and getting distracted when they are bored and don’t have enough active outlet for their energy is pretty well impossible. Even harder if the kids don’t get enough sleep, aren’t eating enough or healthily enough, have to deal with strong emotional challenges at home, etc. Kids are on varied biological rhythms, and some times a kid is in a place where they simply do not have the physical capacity to sit and focus.

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

#787

Post by whatevenisthat »

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?

By responding with reason in writing as succintly as possible, and restating it as often as possible, and being unafraid to restate it when they respond with empty dogma.

And in the workplace, by gutting the types of roles that are just about being "thought leaders" in this direction. Technical people are afraid of those thought leaders because they don't want to get in trouble or fired for speaking against the cult. It's understandable since people need to get paid so they can provide for their families. But if companies just start dropping the negative weight that just encumbers everything and doesn't contribute code or design, it'll improve the bottom line and also gradually resolve this problem in the corporate workplace. The silver lining of a tech correction is that it may actually help make this decision more simple since companies can just start shedding the weight that is not actively making the product better.

So fire them, stop filling those types of roles, recall them in recall elections like San Francisco did last night with that terrible DA, vote in general, and let's stop associating with toxic people. It's effective if enough people do it.

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

#788

Post by thegrimmest »

wbsss4412 wrote: post #747
MockObject wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

I mean, there's nothing "problematic" about having a different culture, with different values. There's also nothing surprising about the fact that different cultures and values produce people vastly differently suited to social and economic success. I don't see any issue with these facts in combination, nor do I need to reach for "marginalization" or racism to explain any of this.

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

#789

Post by DAlperin »

slothtrop wrote: post #733
DAlperin wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Th…

A lot of this is a Google search away. Here's an article from vox that is well researched: https://www.vox.com/22841191/gifted-and-talented-education-p...

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

#790

Post by lliamander »

wbsss4412 wrote: post #547
lliamander wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it is actually oppression, then yes that is a valid reason to be concerned. But let's be clear, you just claimed that the mere existence of disparities is evidence of oppression. That only follows if group outcomes would be equal in the absence of oppression, but that is a completely invalid assumption that has no basis in historical fact.

I claimed that disparities are evidence, not that they are proof . It’s not nor us it ever been about the disparities alone, but the disparities in conjunction with the long history of racial oppression in America. People are alive today who grew up under Jim Crow. People are alive today who were threatened with violence for attending elementary school.

I didn't say you claimed it was proof. I said "evidence" and I think that as a matter of evidence it is pretty weak.

Regardless, in practice people do treat it as proof. Before I move on to the other arguments supporting oppression as an explanation I want to drive home that point: there is hardly ever a serious attempt to rule out other possible explanations for disparities, and to suggest that anything other than racism/oppression might explain those differences opens one up to accusations of racism.

Merely referencing Jim Crow is not enough. It ignores both all the ways in which Jim Crow was ineffective at its aims at the time, as well as the seismic cultural and legal changes that have occurred within the intervening years.

It also fails to account for the success of various other minorities (Jews, Nigerians, descendants of Caribbean slaves, various Asian groups) - many of whom also have faced very serious oppression (including outright attempts at elimination) in the very recent past.

None of this is to say that racism does not occur, but I have yet to see a (non-circular) causal explanation for how that can account for a significant amount of present disparities.

Post reply on HN