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

901–910 of 922 posts

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

#901

Post by jacobolus »

kaba0 wrote: post #859
the_sleaze_ wrote: post #841

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. I…

> 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. I’m sorry to call you out on this but that is very much not a good thing to do. The mind is much more plastic so one can probably start teaching very advanced subject to their child soon, but the body does need plenty of support strength before it will be able to hold itself up, and…

For any parents who want to help their small kids’ balance, let me recommend holding them by the hips for a few minutes at a time starting from about 5 months, instead of holding them by the armpits.

If you hold them from the top they will be passively stable, but if you hold them from the bottom they will need to actively stabilize themselves using their back/abdominal muscles. If you start with just 1 joint they need to stabilize, they figure it out reasonably quickly. (Babies start out surprisingly strong; what they completely lack is coordination.)

After about a month of that, you can carry them around on your shoulders and they will be able to hold up their torso and stay upright. This is great core strength/balance training, while also being a lot more convenient than any other way of transporting a baby, for a moderately healthy parent.

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

#903

Post by dottedmag »

spaced-out wrote: post #551
dottedmag wrote: post #41

This reminds me of a short story from Soviet times: Russia, 1917. A commotion on the street. A lady asks a servant to find out what's going on. The servant returns: - Revolution! - That's fabulous. My grandfather was a revolutionary too. What do they wish to achieve? - They want to make sure nobody is rich! - That's odd... My grandfather wanted to make sure nobody is poor. P.S: A sad irony is that Soviet education sy…

What revolution was the 1917 woman's grandfather apart of?

This one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decembrist_revolt

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

#904

Post by concordDance »

UncleMeat wrote: post #867
concordDance wrote: post #863

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 taki…

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

This confuses me greatly. Are they using more generous grading for pandemic reasons? I've observed a noticeable difference between a top 5% student and a top 1% student, so the fact they're getting the same scores is odd... Wass the material/pace much lower than what the student body could cope with?

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

#905

Post by UncleMeat »

concordDance wrote: post #904
UncleMeat wrote: post #867

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 taki…

> Average GPA of the class of 2025 admits was roughly identical (3.95). This confuses me greatly. Are they using more generous grading for pandemic reasons? I've observed a noticeable difference between a top 5% student and a top 1% student, so the fact they're getting the same scores is odd... Wass the material/pace much lower than what the student body could cope with?

> This confuses me greatly. Are they using more generous grading for pandemic reasons?

Middle school GPA of the admits. Not their GPA in their freshmen year at TJ. I don't believe that TJ publishes this information. In a few years you'll be able to get a few proxies in average AP scores and college admissions information (though these metrics are flawed in their own ways).

But more and more evidence is stacking up that maybe your core assumption (the new class is full of worse students so that more white people get admitted) might not be true. Continuing to grasp for possible other explanations that allow you to keep holding this belief isn't good science. There are more than 500 very smart 8th graders in fairfax county (and prince william and fauquier counties) each year. Changing the testing procedure doesn't mean that less smart students are being admitted.

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

#906

Post by TheMagicHorsey »

zozbot234 wrote: post #534
TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah this is a fact. I moved from SF to a suburb of Sacramento. Our SF school was absolutely horrible (and the main reason we moved). Our suburban school has a much smaller per-student budget but the student body is mainly from families where the parents are skilled tradesmen, white collar workers (mainly Asian or Indian), and state government workers. These families instill very different values in their kids than w…

This comment is such peak HN. Maybe the people in SF don't care about these decadent bourgeois values that are so easily espoused, and would rather do their rightful part in fighting structures of oppression and injustice!

If that is what you believe, please continue to enjoy the wonderful and beautiful city of SF.

One of the great things about America is that we can separate ourselves into different communities and run our experiments. If your way is better you will have a better life.

I've just decided to choose a different path for my family. I truly wish you the best without sarcasm. I do hope the SF experiment succeeds, but after 20 years living there I feel, at least for me, its a total failure.

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

#907

Post by secabeen »

MockObject wrote: post #620
secabeen wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps, instead of the zero-sum struggle for Harvard attendance, we should be working to create new Harvards. That takes not dis-investing in public higher ed to the degree we did during the 2008 recession. It takes decades to build a new R1 research institution, and a commitment of large sums of money over that time. Rockefeller created the University of Chicago, Leyland Stanford his namesake, where are Buffet, B…

It's hard to comprehend disinvestment given that tuitions have increased 10x over a few decades, but > where are Buffet, Bloomberg, Walton, Mars, and Gates Universities? That's a very good point.

> It's hard to comprehend disinvestment given that tuitions have increased 10x over a few decades, but

Disinvestement is the exact reason tuition has increased. The discount funded by state legistatures is being reduced, so tuition has to go up to balance the books.

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

#908

Post by Kaze404 »

whatevenisthat wrote: post #802
Kaze404 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So simple! We just need to stop looking at color and all inequality will go away! I wonder why nobody's thought of that before.

We were doing that for most of the 90s and early 2000s and it was working. It's only because of grifters and agitators and "thought leaders" who try to make a buck off of divisions and needless debates that we see this resurgence in these types of politics. And underneath the veneer of race concern-trolling there's a resurgence in communist ideas trying to use the wedge of race as the basis for justifying both the re…

It sure was working for white people. You're right about that.

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

#909

Post by mrexroad »

genedan wrote: post #179
mrexroad wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve always quipped that the idea that the highest property taxes fund the poorest areas, and vice-versa. While not feasible, the current situation is absurd.

Where I grew up in Texas, this was called the Robinhood Plan where rich districts sent money to poor ones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood_plan

Fascinating, I had no idea.

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

#910

Post by deanCommie »

whatevenisthat wrote: post #710
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…

> "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…

> and consequently crime has increased significantly

It has not. https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/San-Francisco-crime-Che...

Consider why you think that it has, and whether you are also getting your information from an in-group that is primarily motivated by ideology and not reality. (Just a different one from the one you criticise)

Post reply on HN