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)

#841

Post by the_sleaze_ » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 2:08 AM UTC

jacobolus wrote: post #760

rand85632 wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s disingenuous to try to call it well prepared vs poorly prepared. Some people are just naturally more academically gifted

Take almost any “academically gifted” student and start looking into their biography, and you’ll find a shitload of preparation. As a general rule (to which, sure, you can find rare exceptions if you really hunt) the more “gifted” the student, the more hands-on help and attention from experts they had. Even for those without significant expert help, the “gifted” students are the ones who spent a ton more time thinkin…

This is a fundamental aspect of human life that most people do not understand. My kids all walked long before their first birthdays. Why? For the same reason my lower back hurt so much before they turned 1. I held their hands and we practiced walking for hours upon hours.

Mozart wrote his first symphony at 8. He was also playing piano for courteseans at age 3. All at the behest of his father, to support the family. If you, you personally, played piano professionally for the next ~5 years, do you think you could write a quick and dirty symphony? Of course you could.

Anyways I find this basic truth to be incredibly liberating and hopeful. There really aren't any superhumans, just people who've spent more time playing guitar, learning about + coding , racing motorcycles etc. (there are but statistically irrelevant to me)

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

#842

Post by paulryanrogers » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 2:21 AM UTC

charrondev wrote: post #835

User23 wrote: post #830

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Sadly sports funds large portions of some school budgets in the US. School funding is quite messed up.

Individually you feel pressure to move into the best school districts. Yet collectively it falls into racial boundaries because of decades of systemic racism.

Forced busing suddenly fixes a lot of the funding biases, but is very unpopular because fear of the other is hard to overcome.

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

#843

Post by imron » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 2:22 AM UTC

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…

> She also taught me to read 2000 words per minute with retention,

Can you expand upon this and/or link to any resources related to the method?

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

#844

Post by WalterBright » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 2:23 AM UTC

citizenkeen wrote: post #156

WalterBright wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never been convinced that more money for schools produces better results. Sure, that means nicer buildings, but how does that improve education? In Washington State, the teachers finally got their "fully funding" proposal enacted, which was supposed to solve all the funding problems, including big raises for teachers. There's been zero change in results.

My MIL is a teacher, and she's taught at wealthy schools and poor schools. Wealthy schools have more money, but they actually often have less - if a school's average socio-economic class drops below a certain point, there's a slew of federal funding available and she often had more resources in a poor school than a wealthy one. The poorest schools are often the middle-class - those too wealthy to qualify for the fund…

Makes me wonder how I survived public school - I never saw a volunteer in the classroom ever. They weren't poor schools, either, and this was back when moms didn't work.

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

#845

Post by UncleMeat » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 2:27 AM UTC

mmmpop wrote: post #815

UncleMeat wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sup…

What you describe here is often called "code switching" and it requires nontrivial mental effort. The folks that don't need to code switch (because work culture matches their dominant culture norms) are at an advantage.

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

#846

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 3:04 AM UTC

anthonypasq wrote: post #473

lights0123 wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Algebra I also generally includes systems of (2 or 3) linear equations, quadratics (different equation forms, factoring, graphing, solving) and basic exponential functions (although usually just recognizing them and filling in Ce^rt).

i dont think so, thats all algebra 2

[deleted]

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

#847

Post by Joel_Mckay » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 3:42 AM UTC

slothtrop wrote: post #734

Joel_Mckay wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From one perspective, isolation or artificial peer group selection can lead to aberrant moral, social, and cognitive development. There is more to life than worksheets and exams.

There's no evidence that gifted programs are associated with those phenomenons. There is evidence that it helps students excel.

While above normal intellect tends to bring a slight resilience to stress induced expression of latent psychological problems. It still doubles the probability that a latent disorder will develop if there is a generational precedent (roughly 20% of the general population). This is common 1st/2nd year developmental psychology and neurology material. Thus, I find it hard to believe anyone engaged in a pedagogical profession wouldn't already know this fact.

Have a happy and glorious day.

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

#848

Post by chelical » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 3:50 AM UTC

sealaska wrote: post #757

thegrimmest wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess we're circling around this question: Should schools bend to the natural tendencies of students, or should students bend to the rigours and structure of academic life? Given that society itself doesn't bend much, I'm inclined towards the latter.

Do you think kids should have recess? If so, for what purpose? Or, what do you think of Montessori education?

>Montessori education

Why do people always mention this like it isn't a niche educational experience that already self-selects for the children of well-off, white parents? Montessori is almost as relevant to the public education discourse as Catholic schools imo.

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

#849

Post by jljljl » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 3:54 AM UTC

908B64B197 wrote: post #713

jljljl wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the "radical" concern with [0]? Why wouldn't we want students to think critically about uses of technology and how they impact society, or make access to computer science more inclusive?

If you read it you'll see it contains some gems "This focus on middle and high school, and on adolescents is intentional: 12-18 year olds are at a developmental stage where they are just beginning to comprehend their social worlds and their roles and positions in these social worlds. We believe that learning CS in social terms at these ages can not only help them integrate perspectives on computing into their new awa…

What is the sinister material that they’re trying to teach or jam down children’s throats? The fact that they’re preparing material for a specific age range does not seem sinister in itself

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

#850

Post by gerash » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 3:56 AM UTC

The crux seems to be who belongs in this "genius" club or should we eliminate the "genius" club altogether because it creates animosity.

A very similar debate can be in sports. Should we have a single league or a tiered league?

I've seen siblings with very different performance and outcome from the young age. Obviously they are both genetically close and were raised by the same parents.

There are certainly differences in people but the reason might not always be some "genius" gene. It could be very circumstantial. For example they were grouped with people who happened to do poorly in whatever was being measured so they were always the top of their group (academically or athletically) in their formative years. That provided them with a lot of self confidence throughout childhood which led them to believe they can achieve anything and always spent countless hours making sure that's true unlike their sibling who never developed the self esteem and settled for less all their lives. Maybe they didn't get too stressed when faced with challenges due to genetic or childhood differences.

So IMO there should be separate leagues (just like sports teams) but also some mobility across these clubs in case someone possesses the skills and has the motivation to compete at the higher level.