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)

#871

Post by bena » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 12:40 PM UTC

giardini wrote: post #769

bena wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is how you demonstrate that you should not be making decisions about childhood education in two answers. What you are advocating is to essentially make every class a special education class serving the students with the lowest abilities. This won't bring those with learning dysfunctions up, it will only serve to bring the rest down while also building resentment towards those with dysfunctions. And even gifted s…

Nonsense. Don't put words in my mouth.

I'm telling you the results of your answers. You may not directly believe you want that, but that's the result of the things you do say you want.

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

#872

Post by SamPatt » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 12:50 PM UTC

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'

Doesn't sound libertarian at all. Most libertarians hate the modern education system and hate the fact that we treat children like slaves.

Libertarians are all about individuals making their own choices regardless of whether or not that's the optimal outcome for society as a whole.

This dude is the opposite, a total collectivist.

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

#873

Post by SamPatt » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 12:58 PM UTC

thegrimmest wrote: post #703

SamPatt wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If school is work then we need to recognize the children's own agency in school, otherwise it it literally slavery. Forcing children to spend the majority of their lives working against their will leads to problems, especially among non-conformists.

I don't disagree with your characterization, but given children are not agents, and are subject to the whims of their parents, I think it's appropriate. Locking a child in their room is imprisonment, yet is widely used punitively at the whim of parents. Beating children is assault, yet operant conditioning is effective and also widely practiced towards children. It's also permitted in most jurisdictions if undue harm…

Children are agents. And children / adults aren't a binary thing, they progress along a spectrum and if we never give them the ability to make their own choices how on earth do we expect them to be independent adults?

Why do we need non-conformists? I don't care about what you need or what society needs. You lack compassion for the individual.

They aren't hurting anyone by choosing a different life path. They can survive the world just fine without having the official educational path shoved down their throat.

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

#874

Post by SamPatt » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 1:04 PM UTC

thegrimmest wrote: post #778

jacobolus wrote: post #763

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What benefit are individuals who have not been appropriately conditioned to work, suffering, and self-sufficiency? This ideology sounds an awful lot like fascism to me, or maybe some kind of psychopathy. If you start looking around at the highest-leverage contributions to humanity throughout history, a disproportionate number of them come from people who weren’t “appropriately conditioned to work, suffering, and se…

I don't think it's psychopathic or fascist to expect that individuals be able to sustain themselves. Nor do I believe it's right to enslave the collective in order to provide a cushion on which those who fail to do so may land. I don't think it just to mandate the protection of people from the full consequences of their own misfortune, failure, or inadequacy. This is the domain of (voluntary) charity. If you take a h…

Individuals can sustain themselves without needing to be forced to spend their entire childhoods attending educational institutions.

There is proof of this everywhere. The vast majority of humans throughout history never engaged in such a system, and plenty of contemporary humans don't either.

What is your ideology?

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

#875

Post by Blackstrat » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 1:13 PM UTC

Harrison Bergerson.

That gifted students are disproportionately white or Asian reflects the value placed on education not racism. Outcomes will never be equal in a fair society. Provide equal opportunity. Those that take advantage will thrive. Those that don't, will not.

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

#876

Post by Jtype » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 1:18 PM UTC

DAlperin wrote: post #789

slothtrop wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then it's not enough to say it, show the numbers. Considering the tiny demographic it serves, I'd imagine the cuts on the basis of inequality are a convenient excuse to slash spending, and not increase it otherwise. There's no relationship between gutting gifted programs and either alleviating inequality or improving outcomes of all other students. If you want to do the latter, that requires it's own intervention. Th…

A lot of this is a Google search away. Here's an article from vox that is well researched: https://www.vox.com/22841191/gifted-and-talented-education-p...

No post body was provided.

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

#877

Post by Jtype » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 1:27 PM UTC

DAlperin wrote: post #335

Alright, I don't imagine this will be a common take here but here goes. I am a product of the New York City public school system. I have spent the majority of my life as a student in it. The New York city public school system is both the largest public school system in the country and the most segregated. The argument about removing gifted programs are built on the faulty assumptions that the students in those progra…

You make many assertions and back none of them up with any evidence.

You assert that the programs exist to segregate the school, with no evidence.

You assert that more resources are spent on gifted programs without any evidence.

You assert that gifted program both do and do not provide better outcomes. Evidence is not needed here since these statements oppose each other.

The only "evidence" you present is your opinion, anecdotal evidence of what you believe you saw in attending a NYC school.

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

#878

Post by chaostheory » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 1:34 PM UTC

soco wrote: post #864

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.

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.

> But shouldn't we expect the school to intervene?

That’s a nice thing to wish, but at least in the public school system in the US, it’s no longer something that you can expect depending on the region. There are many reasons for this both including indifference and / or just being overwhelmed.

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

#879

Post by chaostheory » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 1:35 PM UTC

r00fus wrote: post #855

chaostheory wrote: post #838

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you have any cite for your research about bullying and mixed-age?

I have already told you it doesn’t exist for mixed ages because it’s not a common situation. The closest thing to it are papers noting at what ages bullying tends to occur and the nature of said bullying.

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

#880

Post by temp8964 » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 1:43 PM UTC

nkrisc wrote: post #262

temp8964 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you give a business $15,900 per student ($1.59million per 100 students), they can run much better than most public schools, especially than those public schools in crappy school districts.

Why? The point of a public school is that they serve the public good, not shareholder value. The issue isn't that public schools are a money pit, the issue is whether they're educating students. A business will seek a profit. That should not be a factor at all in public education. The costs of public education should certainly be considered, especially the question of how much is spent and the quality of the educatio…

I understand you have a strong believe that public good is not for profit, but this simplistic view is patently wrong. Public good and profit are not two things contradictory to each other. It is just very common in the market that businesses serve both profit goal and public good. It is 90% about how the world improves in a market dominant system. There is something fundamentally wrong in your worldview of the society and the market. But hay, I don't think I can change your mind.