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)

#821

Post by dahfizz » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 1:13 AM UTC

jacobolus wrote: post #786

dahfizz wrote: post #775

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You don't need to make sure kids stay 100% still and focused 100% of the time. But you should reward good behavior and punish bad behavior. You should build up a work ethic and the ability to be productive.

The idea that you should stimulate kids to the point where boredom is impossible, or that we should excuse harmful behavior if the kid was bored / upset, is just silly. It only sets the kids up to fail; to live a life where they can't focus on tasks and they lash out whenever they are in a bad mood.

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

#822

Post by charlieyu1 » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 1:17 AM UTC

kgwgk wrote: post #761

michaelt wrote: post #740

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Then if the maximum parking time is 3 hours, it's 10:15 and you want to know at what time you need to leave you take out a cardboard clock, set the current time, and advanced the small hand one, two, three steps. And to know whether you can afford both the parking and a coffee with the money yo…

Sigh, just happened to me. Booked a room at 1:45 for 3 hours, and was told to leave at 4. The staff insisted so hard that it was like we are the troublesome customer who try to milk out something.

A jaw-dropping moment. Maybe school education is more important than we though.

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

#823

Post by vorpalhex » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 1:18 AM UTC

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…

> 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

"Zone of Proximal Development" [1]

Montessori schools do this.

[1] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_of_proximal_development

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

#824

Post by charlieyu1 » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 1:19 AM 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…

The teacher only has so much attention to give for a class of 20+ students. And if a student doesn’t get enough attention they tend to ask for more.

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

#825

Post by vorpalhex » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 1:21 AM UTC

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?

You either engage in their dogma as a subversion, or you wait for them to get hit with reality a sufficient amount of times.

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

#826

Post by 62951413 » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 1:24 AM UTC

cyberlurker wrote: post #97

jmyeet wrote: post #51

There are so many topics that are hard to talk about nowadays without getting into politics but politics and structural inequality are at the core of this. For the benefit of non-US readers, know that how the US funds public education (K-12) is rather unique. It's done through property taxes essentially. Depending on your state and city your property taxes can vary a lot with the same value property. But what this me…

In NYC they also flatten all Asians into one group and say the “gifted” programs aren't diverse enough because a high percentage are Asian. As if implying Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean, etc. all have the same life experience, cultures, advantages, disadvantages… Also you nailed it on the property tax point. Often overlooked as the biggest issue with education. A similar sized home in a good school district ca…

They do it to White people throughout the country. They make no difference between White Americans and European-Americans. They ignore the differences among people from a huge continent spanning Western, Central, Eastern Europe, and the Slavic people from the ex-USSR.

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

#827

Post by ryan93 » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 1:24 AM UTC

moth-fuzz wrote: post #478

I'm not sure at the end of the day there's such a thing as 'intelligence', in terms of how we talk about it, like some sort of RPG stat. In my experience, kids aren't really 'smarter' than other kids, they have learning styles and brain patterns that match up with how the courses are run. Anecdotes, I know, but I was terrible at math compared to the kids in high school who could all just memorize and regurgitate (I h…

There were lots of people at your college that excelled. They were in all likelihood kids who excelled in high school.

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

#828

Post by blindmute » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 1:26 AM UTC

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?

You don't make progress. Unless you're in a position to gain power, what you do is you have six to ten children, raise them on the homestead, and hope that in a few generations they can begin to fix some things. That, or violent revolt, but revolt is a bit harder

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

#829

Post by malloryerik » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 1:27 AM UTC

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…

What about "flipped" classes, where students learn independently with electronic media, so at whatever speed and level they can handle, while teachers support them by reviewing their work, mentoring and tutoring?

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

#830

Post by User23 » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 1:27 AM UTC

charlieyu1 wrote: post #820

chaostheory wrote: post #814

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Children of the “same” age in school can be 11 months and 30 days apart in age. That is absolutely huge during the grade school years. In fact, month of birth is a significant factor in student athletic success. And when it comes to physical bullying, yes it’s generally the larger more physically mature kids doing the bullying.