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)

#341

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:55 PM UTC

bsuvc wrote: post #303

corrral wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever had a 3rd grader threaten to stab you, and look like they really mean it? A second grader call you the c-word? That kind of thing happening basically every day, often multiple times a day? Credible threats of gang violence on a regular basis. School-wide lockdowns with some regularity due to threats of violence, or violence that has actually occurred. Admin with extremely limited options to deal with any of this…

Hmm, I can't imagine having to deal with those things. People don't act like that where I live.

[deleted]

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

#342

Post by yieldcrv » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:55 PM UTC

kingnothing wrote: post #217

cyberlurker wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In NYC they also flatten all Asians into one group and say the “gifted” programs aren't diverse enough because a high percentage are Asian. As if implying Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean, etc. all have the same life experience, cultures, advantages, disadvantages… Also you nailed it on the property tax point. Often overlooked as the biggest issue with education. A similar sized home in a good school district ca…

By that same logic, they also flatten all Whites, Blacks, and Latinos into their own groups as well, even though all are comprised of people from many different countries and cultures.

I think the Asian and Pacific Islander one is interesting because it lacks a shared history of strife to support the amorphous grouping. (Latino should also be treated very differently, this post is about Asian-American and Asians in America)

Asian-American, especially in New York City (but somewhat replicated across the nation), is kind of a burgeoning identity which has now somewhat of a shared distinctly American culture, but is only kind of a self-fulfilling identity because everyone pigeonholes them, domestically and wherever their heritage was from. This makes individuals forced to attempt a shared representation. But it makes less sense compared to "white", "black" and pre-colonial civilizations here, given the lower population and the large time gaps in migration waves, and the large difference in why people migrated to the US at all during those migration waves.

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

#343

Post by bendbro » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:55 PM UTC

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?

Can something be sticky to a race but not genetic?

Obviously yes.

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

#344

Post by qgin » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:55 PM UTC

derac wrote: post #295

minsc_and_boo wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Unacceptably white is still a horrible way to phrase this. Is the NBA unacceptably black? This statement is a textbook syllogistic fallacy. It ignores the qualification context for being gifted vs. being in the NBA. There are a number of historically exclusive systems, prejudiced on socioeconomic and racial standards, that are required prerequisites for being in a gifted school, which do not exist for being in the N…

No. It is not unacceptable when white children have opportunities. It is unacceptable when black children do not.

There’s two ways to equity.

1. Make sure everyone has access to opportunities.

2. Get rid of all opportunities

People are going for the second one despite the fact that it doesn’t actually improve anyone’s life. Its like solving homelessness by burning down all houses.

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

#345

Post by rootusrootus » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:55 PM UTC

logifail wrote: post #326

abirch wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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: This is not my experience. I chose a more expensive house with higher taxes because the schools are better. They are better funded than those in the surrounding areas. Sure the Federal Govern…

> my kids' books and chromebooks are always nice and new There's plenty of evidence that parental attitudes are a big factor: "Middle-class pupils do better because parents and schools put more effort into their education, according to a study [..] factors studied were the parents' interest in their children's education, measured by, for example, whether they read to their children or attended meetings with teachers"…

We no longer read to our kids, and it makes me both happy and sad. Happy because they are voracious readers on their own, but sad because damn, childhood goes by quick...

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

#346

Post by lesgobrandon » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:56 PM UTC

[dead]

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

#347

Post by car_analogy » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:56 PM UTC

jmyeet wrote: post #282

car_analogy wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

From the abstract of the paper you cited: > Yet race remains related to funding disparities and schooling experiences in ways that raise concerns about the role of school finance in perpetuating racial opportunity gaps. What you are pulling out seems to be narrowly-focused and highly-contextualized. Consider [1]: > Property taxation and school funding are closely linked in the United States. In 2018–2019, public educ…

> What you are pulling out seems to be narrowly-focused and highly-contextualized.

It's the most straight-forward and objective measure. That the main result of a paper would be omitted from the abstract and "highly-contextualized" is not surprising, given social science's bias. If a study gets the 'wrong' findings, it tends to be rejected:

The authors also submitted different test studies to different peer-review boards. The methodology was identical, and the variable was that the purported findings either went for, or against, the liberal worldview (for example, one found evidence of discrimination against minority groups, and another found evidence of "reverse discrimination" against straight white males). Despite equal methodological strengths, the studies that went against the liberal worldview were criticized and rejected, and those that went with it were not. - https://theweek.com/articles/441474/how-academias-liberal-bi...

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

#348

Post by skyde » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:56 PM UTC

blatherard wrote: post #235

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'll add some additional color to the funding "uniqueness". At least in NYC, there are Parent-Teacher Associations that are private organizations that raise money for specific schools. These PTAs are, themselves, a great source of inequality within the public schools. For extreme examples the PTA at PS 87, an elementary school in the Upper West Side raised 2 million dollars in 2019 (the last number I could find numbe…

is "PS 87 elementary school" a public school of private school ?

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

#349

Post by b112 » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:56 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #119

b112 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You used 'many' in your second part, which is the same 'not only'.

Qualitatively yes, but not quantitatively.

To me, "not only" can mean any quantity other than only. I have never heard it used any other way, though I fully admit you may have.

So to me, many and not only equate.

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

#350

Post by nlittlepoole » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:57 PM UTC

zmgsabst wrote: post #233

nlittlepoole wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't saying that. They are recognizing that many forms of power in society are zero sum. There are plenty of ways to get a great education but only one Harvard and a limited amount of power to be distributed via an institution like Harvard. You and many like you believe that access to these institutions should be gatekeeped via a meritocracy. The supporters of this form of affirmative action recognize that in…

> The supporters of this form of affirmative action recognize that in a system where black/latino/indigenous students have structural disadvantages (poverty, prejudice, health, etc) that any pure meritocracy leads to a system where their racial group possesses disproportionately less power vs their population. You’re describing why you believe it’s okay to discriminate against that Asian student because there’s “too…

> You’re describing why you believe it’s okay to discriminate against that Asian student because there’s “too many yellows, not enough blacks”.

Not really. If intelligence is equal between races and a system is an actual meritocracy, then the balance between groups should be the same. One group outperforming indicates a difference in circumstances. If you believe those circumstances aren't because of disadvantages then you either believe one group is inherently more capable than the other, one group works harder than the other, or that one group has a more effective culture. Generally, there is a lot of animosity within the black community toward ̶A̶s̶i̶a̶n̶ people who tend to believe any of the above (because it is pretty common amongst racist).

> You’re also ignoring that they’re choosing to engage in institutional racism rather than utilize programs such as meritocracy + individual aid, which automatically counter any “structural disadvantages” — and is in sharp contrast to their proposed racist system that rewards privileged blacks ahead of poor Asians. One of the many reasons such racist systems fail, in practice: they don’t confront the issue you claim they address.

Are you arguing structural disadvantages are not real? are you arguing that the issue in the black community is effort? if the issue isn't structural disadvantages, what do you think they are?

> You just described racism and a belief in racial tribes — exactly what I said was driving this ... You start off disagreeing — and then go on to describe exactly what I said.

I'm disagreeing with the policy as an effective way to address a set of issues. I never said I disagreed with the idea that there are tribes. Tribes are going to exist as long as we live in a society that offers members of different tribes different opportunities and experiences within society. The way to fix that is not to just pretend that doesn't exist. A meritocracy can't exist until everyone within a society believes they have a fair chance to participate in it and it is not controversial to say most black people do not believe that is the status quo. You are choosing to see this as people trying to take something away from you when its really a bunch of people lashing out over the fact that the system was never fair in the first place.