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

791–800 of 922 posts

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

#791

Post by whatevenisthat »

havblue wrote: post #439
paulpauper wrote: post #28

The kids of elites and the rich will always have opportunities regardless of aptitude. Is it any surprise actor's kids tend to also have many opportunities in acting. Opposing gifted education, acceleration, etc. seems like another way of pulling up the ladder, even if it's framed as being well-intentioned.

I think a lot of the equity advocates fail to admit things just aren't working right now. So if you say you'll just pull your kids and send them private, they'll say that we need to force all kids into public schools. There's no middle ground.

No post body was provided.

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

#792

Post by 8note »

lliamander wrote: post #449
wbsss4412 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That’s a very low bar if you take population level disparities and assume it’s a lack of equity causing this Are racial disparities socially determined or not?

Thomas Sowell has a great book on the subject called Discrimination and Disparities . There are interviews where he goes over the high-level ideas in the book if you don't have time to read it, but the basic punchline is that this: no two populations have ever been equal, and only sometimes is that because of some form of oppression or because of genetic differences. There are a multitude of cultural and environmenta…

I'm not clear why I shouldn't care that there are differences due to oppression?

Well, for the oppressor, sure, but why should the oppressed accept it?

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

#793

Post by wbsss4412 »

thegrimmest wrote: post #788
wbsss4412 wrote: post #747

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? 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.

No one ever suggested that it was problematic that people have different cultures, or even that it’s bad to acknowledge that black culture is different from white culture, quite the contrary.

What’s problematic is the degree to which people can’t even entertain the idea that racism is the primary driver of these disparities, rather than things that are specific to POC, such a culture or genetics, especially given the clear and obvious precedent that is firmly established within this country.

What is a reach, is your reaction to this suggestion.

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

#794

Post by dboreham »

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?

Number line.

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

#795

Post by lliamander »

8note wrote: post #792
lliamander wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thomas Sowell has a great book on the subject called Discrimination and Disparities . There are interviews where he goes over the high-level ideas in the book if you don't have time to read it, but the basic punchline is that this: no two populations have ever been equal, and only sometimes is that because of some form of oppression or because of genetic differences. There are a multitude of cultural and environmenta…

I'm not clear why I shouldn't care that there are differences due to oppression? Well, for the oppressor, sure, but why should the oppressed accept it?

I didn't say you shouldn't care about differences due to oppression.

I said that there are differences due to things other than oppression, and that those aren't a problem unless you think equality of outcome should be goal

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

#797

Post by whatevenisthat »

cato_the_elder wrote: post #248
burlesona wrote: post #103

One worldview is that progress is more important than equality, thus inequality is an acceptable side effect so long as life is genuinely improving for everyone. “Rising tide lifts all boats.” Another is that equality is more important than progress. “Take from the rich and give to the poor.” It seems mostly universal that we really want to raise the floor, not lower the ceiling. But so far history suggests that lowe…

It will be resolved, if not by debate then by the hard hit of reality. Happily, we don't live in a "one world government". So, if a society insists too much on silly ideas, it will be left in the dust by others.

No post body was provided.

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

#798

Post by nine_k »

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…

The problem is deeper. The traditional grade-based school is not good. It pushes some kids, and stymies other kids. Slicing kids in thin same-age layers is not good, especially for teenagers who cannot form reasonable social structures and end up with gangs and a group of outcasts.

A more reasonable school, after the elementary level, should mix and match kids, so that older kids with more advanced skills could help those who hasn't still advanced as much. It should allow to take courses, much like a college does, in whatever order a kid (and their parents) find most beneficial, independent of the age, with the goal to pass a GED test by the end of the school. Even better, it should be possible to pass a basic or an advanced level of a test for a subject, independent of the age. The presence of several parallel tracks for a subject solves the issue with gifted kids and struggling kids alike.

I don't think I have all the answers, but the standard school education system was invented in Prussia in the middle of 18th century, and is pretty obviously inadequate for today; ask teachers, students, or parents. Though maybe for some parents it looks adequate because it functions as a storage facility for kids for the day. But kids could spend their time much better than that.

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

#799

Post by whatevenisthat »

IAmWorried wrote: post #323

It's hard for me to tell how many of these "progressive" programs are motivated out of a sincere desire to make the world a better place, and how many are simply motivated by hate and spite, a "if I can't have it nobody can" kind of attitude. Certainly eliminating advanced classes seems to fall into the latter case.

No post body was provided.

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

#800

Post by ricardobeat »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #725
ricardobeat wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It provides them with an environment where they can develop at their own pace, and socialize with other children who think alike, which might not happen with only regular classes, where being gifted can be a disadvantage. I believe the programs are usually not full-time, but an addition to normal school hours.

This, to me, seems very different from being a better path to success as it apparently is in the US, in some kind of segregated system where millions of children are enrolled, up to 15% in some states.

Most studies I've seen also show that over the long term, gifted education does not result in better life outcomes, and does not eliminate differences in background (like being poor vs rich).

Post reply on HN