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

811–820 of 922 posts

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

#811

Post by Rexxar »

SoftTalker wrote: post #138
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…

Subject categories such as "math" are also very broad. I struggled with math in elementary school, because it was mostly about memorization. 3 + 5 = 8. 6 x 7 = 42. Learning and being able to spit out those facts as quickly and flawlessly as possible was most of what I remember about math as a young kid. I was never good at that. I still am not good at that. I got Cs and sometimes lower grades in math. Somehow, though…

I think we do a disservice to mathematics to call calculus "mathematics". Similarly learning alphabet and to write is not called "literature".

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

#812

Post by jacinda »

Rexxar wrote: post #811
SoftTalker wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subject categories such as "math" are also very broad. I struggled with math in elementary school, because it was mostly about memorization. 3 + 5 = 8. 6 x 7 = 42. Learning and being able to spit out those facts as quickly and flawlessly as possible was most of what I remember about math as a young kid. I was never good at that. I still am not good at that. I got Cs and sometimes lower grades in math. Somehow, though…

I think we do a disservice to mathematics to call calculus "mathematics". Similarly learning alphabet and to write is not called "literature".

We could consider doing the labeling in the other direction where we keep calling calculus, real analysis, algebra, etc. mathematics but treat arithmetic more like we do learning the alphabet (a necessary stepping stone but certainly not the end goal). We could also more typically refer to arithmetic as arithmetic and not math(s), then.

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

#813

Post by 62951413 »

TrackerFF wrote: post #550
dottedmag wrote: post #41

This reminds me of a short story from Soviet times: Russia, 1917. A commotion on the street. A lady asks a servant to find out what's going on. The servant returns: - Revolution! - That's fabulous. My grandfather was a revolutionary too. What do they wish to achieve? - They want to make sure nobody is rich! - That's odd... My grandfather wanted to make sure nobody is poor. P.S: A sad irony is that Soviet education sy…

But also pretty good at excluding for example Jews from certain prestigious schools, see: https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1556

The Jews were overrepresented among both students and teachers in top STEM educational institutions starting from magnet schools.

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

#814

Post by chaostheory »

nine_k wrote: post #798
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…

The reason children are “sliced up” by age is because of their lack of maturity. Consequently, if you mix younger children with older, more physically developed children what will inevitably happen is a lot of bullying.

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

#815

Post by mmmpop »

UncleMeat wrote: post #436
mmmpop wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what I'm getting at is that the "rich White affluent people gave me a chance" and I "didn't behave" according to their standards, so they pushed me out. I was too young to understand, but perhaps they had a fair point? I was well-behaved and bright, but coarse I suppose. I was too poor to participate in the fancy science trips, couldn't afford class materials, constantly late, and homework never got done due…

I think it depends on what the rules are. A lot of rules encode social and class norms rather than actually achieve a pedagogical goal. Classic examples of this is forcing kids to use "proper" grammar rather than AAVE or forcing left-handed kids to write with the right hand.

I take your point but I had awful redneck grammar until I was 22 or so, and it's something everyone can fix if they just put the time in. I'm not a stickler for "correct" words because language evolves, but if you come to HN because you like programming, surely you'd understand why I'd appreciate semantics of grammar.

But forcing a child to use their non-dominant right hand could be considered a form of cruelty I suppose, so not seeing how they're really related.

When I go back home to Appalachia, I fall back into my old bad habits readily but if I got a call from my boss, I'm switching to "educated" and that's more than just ditching the drawl, it's modifying the entire way I structure my thoughts. I think that's very common and not unfair to expect from someone claiming that they desire education.

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

#816

Post by thegrimmest »

wbsss4412 wrote: post #793
thegrimmest wrote: post #788

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The research substantiates this thesis though. As cited variously in grandparent threads, domestic environment and culture are the main predictive factors of academic and economic outcomes. Poor kids who study do much better than rich kids who don't.

We no longer deny people opportunities based on their race. If your SAT score is high, you'll be admitted anywhere you want. If you study hard, your score will be high. The reach is constructing the SAT, or any other similar test, as racist because the scores are not evenly distributed by race.

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

#817

Post by seoaeu »

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…

If you continue reading, the author seems to agree with you…

> My greatest concern? The admirable but demonstrably false notion that school systems can fully implement an “all kids are gifted” framework that attempts to address the issue of eliminating the need for specialized gifted programming.

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

#818

Post by chaostheory »

wbsss4412 wrote: post #793
thegrimmest wrote: post #788

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> What’s problematic is the degree to which people can’t even entertain the idea that racism is the primary driver of these disparities

The reason why many people cannot accept this is because many other groups experienced problems from racism as well, but they were eventually able to overcome these barriers. Moreover, the system has already changed to be more accommodating, maybe even putting most of their focus and resources on the bottom 20% of students at the expense of everyone else. Yet, we still have people stating that it’s still unfair.

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

#819

Post by r00fus »

chaostheory wrote: post #814
nine_k wrote: post #798

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The reason children are “sliced up” by age is because of their lack of maturity. Consequently, if you mix younger children with older, more physically developed children what will inevitably happen is a lot of bullying.

I wonder if that's an issue in many Montessori schools? What evidence do you have that bullying is a byproduct of mixed age classes?

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

#820

Post by charlieyu1 »

chaostheory wrote: post #814
nine_k wrote: post #798

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The reason children are “sliced up” by age is because of their lack of maturity. Consequently, if you mix younger children with older, more physically developed children what will inevitably happen is a lot of bullying.

Bullying still happens among children of same age.
Post reply on HN