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)

#161

Post by 300bps » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:26 PM UTC

car_analogy wrote: post #133

jmyeet wrote: post #51

There are so many topics that are hard to talk about nowadays without getting into politics but politics and structural inequality are at the core of this. For the benefit of non-US readers, know that how the US funds public education (K-12) is rather unique. It's done through property taxes essentially. Depending on your state and city your property taxes can vary a lot with the same value property. But what this me…

> how the US funds public education (K-12) is rather unique. It's done through property taxes essentially. Depending on your state and city your property taxes can vary a lot with the same value property. But what this means is the wealthier localities have more tax revenue and thus better schools. This is an oft repeated myth. In addition to property taxes, school funding is supplemented by state and federal budgets…

That $6,000 per student figure is from 1998 according to the link you provided.

Today, the crappy school district near me pays $15,900 per student and the good school district near me pays $19,800 per student.

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

#162

Post by bloaf » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:27 PM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #10

Author cites the research on minorities being less likely be identified as gifted given comparable test scores, but selectively leaves out all of the research on the effects of eliminating gifted programs. I guess Teach for America assumes their readers are too dumb to notice?

I notice you've not cited it either.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001698629303700...

> Results indicated that parents perceived that their children were experiencing a decline in energy, curiosity, and intrinsic motivation to achieve at high levels and were beginning to disengage from the traditional curriculum [after elimination of the gifted programs].

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10416...

> This review also found that the needs of many gifted and talented students are not addressed in many regular classroom settings across our country... A large body of research supports the finding that various forms of acceleration result in higher achievement for gifted and talented learners.

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

#163

Post by chucksta » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:27 PM UTC

rhexs wrote: post #151

chucksta wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you have to be in gifted to have a successful life?

IQ correlates extremely heavily with having a successful life by western civilization standards, yes.

So you can't have a high IQ and not be in gifted?

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

#164

Post by anthonyshort » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:27 PM UTC

cglong wrote: post #108

jmyeet wrote: post #51

There are so many topics that are hard to talk about nowadays without getting into politics but politics and structural inequality are at the core of this. For the benefit of non-US readers, know that how the US funds public education (K-12) is rather unique. It's done through property taxes essentially. Depending on your state and city your property taxes can vary a lot with the same value property. But what this me…

As an American, how is this problem avoided in other countries?

Australian public schools are funded by state and federal governments, not local. So all public schools tend to be pretty similar. On the flip side the government also partially funds private schools, which is an issue at the moment.

https://www.dese.gov.au/quality-schools-package/fact-sheets/...

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

#165

Post by rajin444 » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:27 PM UTC

wbsss4412 wrote: post #115

jaywalk wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what happens when we decide "everyone is gifted" and teach all students at the level that would have been taught only to gifted students before? Seems like the obvious outcome would be a lot more students who struggle, necessitating a slower track for them. So instead of regular and gifted classes, you have regular and "non-gifted" (for lack of a better term) classes. This is why equity is a bullshit goal.

Equity isn’t a bullshit goal. As is typical, the concept get confused because one assumes that gifted programs correctly track students based primarily on ability, whereas in my personal experience and looking at the data, they primarily track students based on socioeconomic status. It’s not about denying that some students have the ability to excel in subjects in comparison to their peers. The question is whether or…

I think your point comes down to whether or not you believe we’re all blank slates. If yes, then what you says makes sense. If no, then we would expect ability to somewhat dictate socioeconomic status.

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

#166

Post by chowells » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:27 PM UTC

slowhand09 wrote: post #95

acchow wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why can't we just admit it and quit trying to make people who are unique the same? America keeps conflating equity for equality.

[flagged]

And conservatives are flat-out wrong, as usual, because they're arguing against strawmen they've invented. No one is talking about individuals. The discussion is about group statistics. Individuals are irrelevant to the discussion.

If there is a statistical difference in outcomes, why? Is one group inherently inferior? Or is there maybe not the equality of opportunity that they claim?

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

#167

Post by danans » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:27 PM UTC

Moderators, please include a (2021) in the article title.

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

#168

Post by bobkazamakis » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:27 PM UTC

car_analogy wrote: post #133

jmyeet wrote: post #51

There are so many topics that are hard to talk about nowadays without getting into politics but politics and structural inequality are at the core of this. For the benefit of non-US readers, know that how the US funds public education (K-12) is rather unique. It's done through property taxes essentially. Depending on your state and city your property taxes can vary a lot with the same value property. But what this me…

> how the US funds public education (K-12) is rather unique. It's done through property taxes essentially. Depending on your state and city your property taxes can vary a lot with the same value property. But what this means is the wealthier localities have more tax revenue and thus better schools. This is an oft repeated myth. In addition to property taxes, school funding is supplemented by state and federal budgets…

>This is an oft repeated myth. In addition to property taxes, school funding is supplemented by state and federal budgets, in inverse proportion to property taxes, so that racial differences in per-pupil funding are negligible:

>on average, both Black and Latinx total per pupil expenditures exceed White total per pupil expenditures by $229.53 and $126.15, respectively - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/23328584198724...

Difference in expenditure per is a particularly shit way to measure this.

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

#169

Post by UncleMeat » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:27 PM UTC

fein wrote: post #72

Robotbeat wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> with similar test scores > with similar test scores > WITH SIMILAR TEST SCORES

I had to look around for the source of this, and I can't find the "with similar test scores" part in the Vanderbuilt site article on the Vanderbuilt study this is based on. It says 66% less likely, but the "similar test scores" part isn't in the same paragraph. I really dislike that it is so difficult to find the source of these statements in modern media, as the news articles I read didn't even cite the study, I had…

> Misleading at best as the "tests" they are talking about are not gifted assessment tests, but rather standardized testing which I don't think is that great of an indicator.

I find this to be frustrating. How many times have we heard from people defending the existing systems that standardized testing is an appropriate method of stratifying people. When universities decide to minimize the relevance of the SATs we see howls of complaints. Now suddenly these tests are of minimal utility if they demonstrate that qualified black and hispanic students are being turned away?

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

#170

Post by Invictus0 » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:27 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #104

jmyeet wrote: post #51

There are so many topics that are hard to talk about nowadays without getting into politics but politics and structural inequality are at the core of this. For the benefit of non-US readers, know that how the US funds public education (K-12) is rather unique. It's done through property taxes essentially. Depending on your state and city your property taxes can vary a lot with the same value property. But what this me…

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.

So lets take your argument to the extreme and fund a 1000 person school with 1 dollar. Would adding some more dollars to the budget help? Yes, because at some point you can afford to turn on the lights, and if you keep adding money you can afford to hire a teacher. More realistically, more money can do things like fund free meals for needy kids so they don't have to go to class hungry. It can reduce class sizes, replace textbooks, put more books in the library, and add gifted/special ed programs. There are certainly useful things the money can be spent on.

At the other extreme, if we gave schools unlimited funding, you could afford to hire a teacher for every student in the school. Would that help learning outcomes? Probably. There is a huge space in the middle where admins eat up cash, sports teams eat up cash, for sure. But to say that "more money doesn't get better results" doesn't make any sense.