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

861–870 of 922 posts

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

#861

Post by kaba0 »

commandlinefan wrote: post #500
wbsss4412 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Equality of outcome is not the goal of equity. That’s a straw man argument created by its detractors. People point out disparities as evidence that there aren’t equal opportunities in society. The conservative position is simply to assert that equality of opportunity exists cuz America, and if you question that you are a communist who just wants everyone to be the same.

> Equality of outcome is not the goal of equity. They actually say that it is - have you seen the famous comic where the three guys are watching the baseball game but the short guy can't see through the fence? They literally are saying the equity of outcome is the beginning and the end of their goals.

Equity of outcome can be a worthwhile goal if that outcome is a boolean opportunity for example, as in case of the cartoon. Also, setting the boolean to the worse value for everyone is not a morally good solution in my opinion - that way noone will see the game.

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

#862

Post by kaba0 »

wbsss4412 wrote: post #247
rajin444 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People point out disparities as evidence that there aren’t equal opportunities That’s a very low bar if you take population level disparities and assume it’s a lack of equity causing this. You’re talking about having a deep understanding of incredibly complex systems layered on top of one another. Equality of opportunity is never possible. We’re all born with different genetics. Anything less is just arbitrary line…

> 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?

I believe they are social, but I also believe it is very much not the task of a school program to solve racial disparities that are multi-generational and perhaps one of the most complex issues in the US. It is the equivalent of a hospital closing down because they can’t save everyone.

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

#863

Post by concordDance »

UncleMeat wrote: post #749
concordDance wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those interested in what what Scott Aaronson said: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=4979 > In a world-historic irony, the main effect of this “solution” will be to drastically limit the number of Asian students, while drastically increasing (!!!) the number of White students. The proportion of Black and Hispanic students is projected to increase a bit but remain small.

The fun part about this is that TJHSST did edit the admissions process so we can actually test Aaronson's claim. From class of 2024 to class of 2025. * Economically disadvantaged students: 0.62% to 25.09% * Black students: 1.23% to 7.09% * Hispanic students: 3.29% to 11.27% * White students: 17.70% to 22.36% * Asian students: 73.05% to 54.36% The raw increase in black students is larger than the raw increase in white…

I wonder how his other predictions like it becoming a much less elite school with a lower quality student body have held up.

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

#864

Post by soco »

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.

It would happen yes if the children are left on their own at that. But shouldn't we expect the school to intervene? It's not like they don't notice or they cannot know. But if the school culture says bullying is acceptable because hey that's the lead athlete and he didn't kill anybody, then yes, bullying will happen inevitably.

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

#865

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#866

Post by [deleted] »

arbitrary_name wrote: post #852
EddieDante wrote: post #807

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do we need these, exactly? What benefit are individuals who have not been appropriately conditioned to work, suffering, and self-sufficiency? What the fuck is wrong with you?

In loud stage whisper: He's a 'libertarian'

[deleted]

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

#867

Post by UncleMeat »

concordDance wrote: post #863
UncleMeat wrote: post #749

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fun part about this is that TJHSST did edit the admissions process so we can actually test Aaronson's claim. From class of 2024 to class of 2025. * Economically disadvantaged students: 0.62% to 25.09% * Black students: 1.23% to 7.09% * Hispanic students: 3.29% to 11.27% * White students: 17.70% to 22.36% * Asian students: 73.05% to 54.36% The raw increase in black students is larger than the raw increase in white…

I wonder how his other predictions like it becoming a much less elite school with a lower quality student body have held up.

Average GPA of the class of 2025 admits was roughly identical (3.95).

We will obviously have to wait a few years to see how college admissions turn out and then we'll need to wait longer than that to see how their lives turn out. But early concerns about the students being "lower quality" are not panning out.

There is also the question of what "elite" means. Should TJ select for people that are extremely good at taking tests so they can have students take a mountain of AP classes and score a lot of 5s? Or is that not actually the best kind of education for gifted students? The most valuable material when I attended was not the testing but building weird software in the syslab. This value isn't encoded in grades and test scores.

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

#868

Post by brianwawok »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #521
brianwawok wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The property tax leading to funding differences is part of the puzzle, but not all of the puzzle. In my random neck of the world we have roughly 4 school districts. 1) Public school 1. Covers most of the black and brown students of the area. 2) Public school 2. Covers most of the lower to middle class white students of the area. 3) Public school 3. Covers most of the higher class white students, especially families o…

> 3) Public school 3. Covers most of the higher class white students, especially families of a local high ranking private college. I live in a place like this, except its a mix of middle and higher class students. The secret is simple: the rich parents pay for tutors for their kids. I know many families who have paid for tutors for their kids since kindergarten. Be very wary of pursuing good school districts in rich…

Perhaps that is your experience, but that is not mine. Tutors are only used in my areas for kids that are falling behind, not for the tip of the spear.

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

#869

Post by walnutclosefarm »

imron wrote: post #843
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?

Well, we're talking about 55 years ago, so I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be any online references to the actual materials used, and the technology pieces were all pre-digital. (There was basically one time-share computer for public school students in the entire state I lived in at the time, and "interactive device" meant a KSR 33 teletype connected to that computer via 10 character per second dial-up modem).

So, I can tell you a little about the methods, but that's all. First, we spent a small, but meaningful amount of time each day in drills to train our eyes and brains to rapidly recognize and interpret increasingly longer strings of symbols. This was done by flashing a sequence of numbers (first) or letters (as we got better) on a screen for a set period of time, and having students transcribe them onto paper. As we achieved accuracy for a given flash (say 5 numbers for .1 second), the flash interval was incrementally reduced, and the length of sequence increased. I don't recall the flash intervals, but I do recall that at the end of a year of doing these exercises for a few minutes each school day, I was routinely reading 15 or more digit sequences accurately in a single, very short glance.

We also used machines (entirely mechanical) that built on that ability by scanning lines of text we were to read in multi-word chunks on a timed basis. The idea was to take the sight interpretation skill and extend it to reading phrases in a single glance, rather than reading and interpreting single words.

And finally, there was application of these skills to real texts, for comprehension. Comprehension was of course focused on getting the meaning of a text, but also on vocabulary. New vocabulary was introduced in relatively simple texts, and re-enforced over time.

I have no idea how well all this worked for average students. It worked beautifully for me, though.

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

#870

Post by gilbetron »

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.

Anecdotally, as a parent, I've found the opposite to be more true. We have several schools that are k-8 in my city, but the majority split 6-8 into middle school. Talking to parents of the k-8 schools, bullying is almost non existent. Not true in the traditional middle school. Some kids are more or less mature than others as they mature, and it helps to have options for friends. Also, kids weren't split into single year age bands for all of the existence of humanity and then the past hundred years or so we suddenly split them up.
Post reply on HN