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

831–840 of 922 posts

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

#831

Post by blindmute »

wbsss4412 wrote: post #748
MockObject wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The fence is 100 feet high and requires climbing an arduous ladder to see over it. One of the people decides not to climb it.

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

#832

Post by jacobolus »

dahfizz wrote: post #821
jacobolus wrote: post #786

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> you should reward good behavior and punish bad behavior

In general, you should not impose external rewards and punishments in education, to the extent possible. They block students’ focus, creativity, and problem solving, and undermine learning, literally interfering with memory formation.

This is a subject of incredible amounts of research in psychology and education, and has been demonstrated over and over in a wide variety of contexts.

> idea that you should stimulate kids to the point where boredom is impossible

Nobody ever suggested this. Only that class should be engaging and teachers should try to earn students’ attention instead of demanding it under threat.

> excuse harmful behavior [...] sets the kids up to fail

Nobody ever suggested “excusing harmful behavior”.

The proposal was that students who are wiggly or have trouble focusing should be thrown out of class because it is a “waste” for good teachers to teach them. I think this would be harmful, would be failing those students, and misses the point of education.

What sets kids up to fail is being treated as though they are worthless or being told so. Having access to good teachers does not “set kids up to fail”.

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

#833

Post by fn-mote »

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.

I think the outcome is that they all get to watch the game. I guess you can call that "equality of outcomes".

I think reading "head height" as the outcome, is a very short-sighted interpretation.

Like anything else, interpretation has nuance and you could read it both ways. On HN we're supposed to address "the strongest possible interpretation" in our comments, so I would try to apply that principle here as well...

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

#834

Post by fn-mote »

tyjen wrote: post #197
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 state I occupy doesn't allow accelerated programs for students to help them advance to a higher level math than originally projected, they only allow it for students to catch up. This is the opposite of what the previous state I lived in which allowed motivated students to advance, but they're also turning gifted programs into lotteries versus achievement. My daughter is in the high school math club, so she frequ…

> Earlier this week, a teacher was ranting to the club about new guideline goals that either the state/county was pushing, that all (most) incoming 9th graders take Algebra 1.

I hate to say it, but Algebra 1 by 9th grade is NOT a very high bar. In my area, the majority of students should be studying algebra no later than this. IMO, if most of the students aren't making it this far, something is wrong in the system.

Maybe the bottom 20% shouldn't, but talking about algebra 1 in 9th grade like it's a stretch goal is a danger sign to me.

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

#835

Post by charrondev »

User23 wrote: post #830
charlieyu1 wrote: post #820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Athletics is a pretty poor excuse for hampering a child’s education.

Athletics should be separate from schooling and run by the community (as is Europe).

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

#836

Post by fn-mote »

tonguez wrote: post #117
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…

“…it is unacceptable to have eighth grade Algebra I classes and gifted education programs that disproportionately exclude Black and brown children.” a definition of exclude is “deny (someone) access to or bar (someone) from a place, group, or privilege.” no one is barring access to these classes on the basis race. can you even imagine that? “sorry, you’re not allowed to take this class; you’re black.” it’s like every…

>> “…it is unacceptable to have eighth grade Algebra I classes and gifted education programs that disproportionately exclude Black and brown children.”

> no one is barring access to these classes on the basis race. can you even imagine that?

A test for a gifted class that measures _knowledge_ rather than the _ability to learn_ will create an "elite" class full of students whose parents had them study the advanced topics. Even if they were not "good" at it. In this case high SES -> advanced knowledge -> good test scores -> elite class that excludes Black students primarily because the entrance test results are predicted by SES.

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

#837

Post by geoduck14 »

charlieyu1 wrote: post #822
kgwgk wrote: post #761

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>Booked a room at 1:45 for 3 hours, and was told to leave at 4.

If you are renting a hotel room by the hour, it is highly likely that the staff are poorly educated

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

#838

Post by chaostheory »

r00fus wrote: post #819
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.

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?

None, because it’s not common. All I know is that research shows that bullying develops and evolves by age. It’s not going to be as prevalent in early age Montessori schools as it is in middle school. Let’s also not ignore that a private Montessori school is also a filter.

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

#839

Post by icedchai »

robonerd wrote: post #237
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…

Algebra I at 8th grade would have placed you a year behind when I was in school. 7th grade was Algrebra 1, Algebra 2 was 8th, Geometry was 9th (first year of highschool). 10th grade had Trig, 11th had pre-Calc, and Calculus was the final year.

Same here. This was in the mid 90's though. Not sure what it's like these days...

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

#840

Post by walnutclosefarm »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #721
walnutclosefarm wrote: post #377

If I’m leading a system in which the population of eighth graders taking Algebra I has a disproportionate number of white and Asian students, then eliminating Algebra I as an offering for eighth graders looks like an obvious pathway to equity. Well, yes, if by equity you mean the race composition of every class equals the race composition of the school as a whole. But shouldn't equity in education mean that every stu…

> But shouldn't equity in education mean that every student gets the instruction and support they need to achieve their potential, insofar as the school is able to provide it, without respect to their race, class or sex? You’re taking about equality. Equity is always just a euphemism for equality of outcome. Which can only ever be achieved by lowering the outcomes of top performs to the same level as the lowest perfo…

I know. But I refuse give up the meaning of the word "equity" - which is not equality of outcomes, but rather fair, impartial. In the case of schools, that means fairly and impartially meeting the needs of every student. You can call med old fashioned, if you wish (I'm certainly old).
Post reply on HN