Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California's most neglected group of students: the gifted ones

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 553 posts

Re: California's most neglected group of students: the gifted ones

#361

Post by zozbot234 »

mlyle wrote: post #350
zozbot234 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> spending them on those who are unlikely to "pay it back" If only. The school system is actually terrible at helping the most disadvantaged and marginalized students. These students would benefit the most from highly structured and directed instructional approaches that often have the pupils memorizing their "lesson" essentially word-for-word and getting prompt, immediate feedback on every question they answer[0] -…

Can you please provide some evidence that this kind of scripted and recitation-heavy instruction is beneficial compared to other approaches? I've only seen pretty limited, pretty confounded evidence for it. A lot of studies I've seen are studies of students in charter programs, but these studies tend to ignore pretty big selection effects (e.g. comparing students to the general student population, when studies have f…

> deeper critical thinking or application of concepts.

These things come after one has the basics down pat. Modern "Progressive" education rejects this point altogether. It's whole approach is entirely founded on putting the cart before the horse.

> Further, blab schools were really pretty demanding of attention span

Attention span is a function of engagement. As it turns out, hearing the lesson and blabbing it back until one has memorized it fully is a pretty engaging and even "gamified" activity, especially wrt. the most marginalized and disadvantaged students for whom other drivers of high effort mighy be not nearly as effective, as you hint at.

Re: California's most neglected group of students: the gifted ones

#362

Post by jdougan »

csa wrote: post #10

It’s not just California, but California may be one of the more egregious state neglecters. The push at the state level for policies that focus on equality of outcomes over equality of opportunities will not end well for the gifted and talented communities. Whenever I hear these people talk about their policies, I can’t help but recall Harrison Bergeron. Focusing on equality of outcomes in a society that structurally…

> “In my early days it was an article of faith among a selfstyled ‘intellectual elite’ that they could teach calculus to a horse . . if they started early enough, spent enough money, supplied special tutoring, and were endlessly patient and always careful not to bruise his equine ego. They were so sincere that it seems downright ungrateful that the horse always persisted in being a horse. Especially as they were right . . if ‘starting early enough’ is defined as a million years or more."

Re: California's most neglected group of students: the gifted ones

#363

Post by didibus »

hintymad wrote: post #162
laidoffamazon wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s really strange that you have such emotional reactions to the concept of equity while my Indian middle class IIT educated dad who experienced Indian institutional failure in the 70s and 80s never really cared about if me or my sibling were in the G&T program. What separates you from the people that didn’t make it out?

I don't care about G&T program per se, either. Nor did my country have it when I grew up. I do care about education. I guess my fundamental assumption is that when everyone maximizes their full potential, the outcome will naturally be different. So, pushing students to realize their potential will be against equity, but will be the best way to minimize the equity gap. Now the nuances for us in the US specifically: th…

> So, pushing students to realize their potential will be against equity, but will be the best way to minimize the equity gap.

That's not what equity is, but it's a common messaging by those trying to move the popular opinion against it, so I understand why you wrongly thought so.

Equity isn't about holding back high-achieving students or bringing everyone to the same level. Instead, it's about ensuring everyone has access to the resources and opportunities they need to reach their full potential, while recognizing that different people might need different levels or types of support to get there.

A true equity approach in education would mean:

    Supporting gifted students to reach their full potential
    AND providing additional support to students who face systemic barriers or need extra help
    AND ensuring all students have access to quality education and resources
The goal is to lift everyone up, not to hold anyone back. The idea that equity means lowering standards or limiting achievement is a misrepresentation often used to argue against equity initiatives as a straw man.

Re: California's most neglected group of students: the gifted ones

#364

Post by mlyle »

zozbot234 wrote: post #361
mlyle wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please provide some evidence that this kind of scripted and recitation-heavy instruction is beneficial compared to other approaches? I've only seen pretty limited, pretty confounded evidence for it. A lot of studies I've seen are studies of students in charter programs, but these studies tend to ignore pretty big selection effects (e.g. comparing students to the general student population, when studies have f…

> deeper critical thinking or application of concepts. These things come after one has the basics down pat. Modern "Progressive" education rejects this point altogether. It's whole approach is entirely founded on putting the cart before the horse. > Further, blab schools were really pretty demanding of attention span Attention span is a function of engagement. As it turns out, hearing the lesson and blabbing it back…

I asked for sources, not a quibble on a sub-point.

I disagree. I like rote and rigor, but I think it's a mistake to ignore developing problem solving and intuition early. A lot of programs overshoot, but figuring out how to make decent guesses and test them is important (as is getting lots of practice on well-defined problems).

edit: it looks like you're editing your comment. You added:

> As it turns out, hearing the lesson and blabbing it back until one has memorized it fully is a pretty engaging and even "gamified" activity

I disagree here, too. ;) I mean, yes, it can be, but we have other tools in our toolbox. The hammer is useful but has diminishing returns as we try and apply it more and more.

Re: California's most neglected group of students: the gifted ones

#365

Post by frmersdog »

couchdb_ouchdb wrote: post #236
frmersdog wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way are you certain that she's gifted?

In Seattle, there's actually a test you can take to get you into the "HCC" program which is the gifted program in Seattle Public Schools. Seattle, however, has been trying (successfully) for years to dismantle it. So even if you pass the test, there's not very many places that you can go to get these services.

I'm not so certain that a test like that is proof of anything other than that someone has the resources to study for that test. Seattle's system seems to have been a magnet program (where such tests are maybe appropriate) masquerading as a gifted program. One has to wonder how many gifted students went underserved so that such a magnet program could be maintained. Sunsetting it for a neighborhood program seems fairer and more effective.

In any case, it's good that you've observed your daughter's failure to achieve without an extrinsic impetus. It's probably a good time to sit down with her and determine what excites her intellectually so that she can be empowered to pursue that subject independently. I can tell you first-hand that relying on a school or school system - even one that routinely sends graduates (minority and white, working and middle class) to highly-selective colleges and universities - to shepherd students into stable and lucrative careers is currently a fool's gambit. Academic achievement is often necessary but not sufficient (and also more expensive and time-consuming than incorporating a measure of autodidacticism.)

Re: California's most neglected group of students: the gifted ones

#366

Post by kelnos »

sunshowers wrote: post #353
csa wrote: post #10

It’s not just California, but California may be one of the more egregious state neglecters. The push at the state level for policies that focus on equality of outcomes over equality of opportunities will not end well for the gifted and talented communities. Whenever I hear these people talk about their policies, I can’t help but recall Harrison Bergeron. Focusing on equality of outcomes in a society that structurally…

While I think each student should be challenged in ways that cause their skills to develop, unequal opportunities lead to unequal outcomes which in turn lead to unequal opportunities and so on. There isn't really a separation between opportunities and outcomes that way. But you also have to balance this with people in such programs not thinking of themselves as superior to others. This seems really hard -- I think it…

I didn't think the GP was arguing that. School systems are focusing on equality of outcomes, when they should be focusing on equality of opportunities.

Gifted kids will be able to take better advantage of those opportunities and experience better outcomes. But that's ok; that should be how things work.

When you focus only on equal outcomes, you end up with the lowest common denominator, and gifted kids get bored and don't excel.

When I was growing up (80s), I was in a program for gifted kids. I do expect that I got opportunities that other kids didn't get, which is a problem. But ultimately I thrived and have become successful, and I'm sure programs like that helped. In middle school and high school I was always placed in the highest-level classes (there were 4 levels), and I am certain I wouldn't be as successful had I been given the same instruction as kids in the bottom level or two.

My outcomes were certainly better, but as long as everyone has the opportunity for advanced instruction -- if they have an aptitude and can qualify for it -- I think that's fine.

I'm sure there was some inequality of opportunity when I was in grade school, and that sort of thing does need to be fixed. But we can't do so in a way that assumes all kids are equally gifted and talented. That's just not how people work.

Re: California's most neglected group of students: the gifted ones

#367

Post by gyomu »

mlyle wrote: post #350
zozbot234 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> spending them on those who are unlikely to "pay it back" If only. The school system is actually terrible at helping the most disadvantaged and marginalized students. These students would benefit the most from highly structured and directed instructional approaches that often have the pupils memorizing their "lesson" essentially word-for-word and getting prompt, immediate feedback on every question they answer[0] -…

Can you please provide some evidence that this kind of scripted and recitation-heavy instruction is beneficial compared to other approaches? I've only seen pretty limited, pretty confounded evidence for it. A lot of studies I've seen are studies of students in charter programs, but these studies tend to ignore pretty big selection effects (e.g. comparing students to the general student population, when studies have f…

> Can you please provide some evidence that this kind of scripted and recitation-heavy instruction is beneficial compared to other approaches?

Singapore/Hong Kong/Japan/Taiwan/Macau dominating the PISA

Re: California's most neglected group of students: the gifted ones

#368

Post by zozbot234 »

mlyle wrote: post #364
zozbot234 wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> deeper critical thinking or application of concepts. These things come after one has the basics down pat. Modern "Progressive" education rejects this point altogether. It's whole approach is entirely founded on putting the cart before the horse. > Further, blab schools were really pretty demanding of attention span Attention span is a function of engagement. As it turns out, hearing the lesson and blabbing it back…

I asked for sources, not a quibble on a sub-point. I disagree. I like rote and rigor, but I think it's a mistake to ignore developing problem solving and intuition early. A lot of programs overshoot, but figuring out how to make decent guesses and test them is important (as is getting lots of practice on well-defined problems). edit: it looks like you're editing your comment. You added: > As it turns out, hearing the…

> developing problem solving and intuition early.

There's no reason why these things couldn't be developed in a more "structured" approach than the default (avoiding the overshooting you mention). The quick feedback cycle for every answer is really the most critical point.

Re: California's most neglected group of students: the gifted ones

#369

Post by mesh »

niemandhier wrote: post #309

My personal observation: It’s not gifted programs, it’s the environment. I work on a pretty good science campus in a smallish university town, lots of smart people and so on. There are a few products of gifted programs, but most people just meandered in. What stands out though is that almost everybody has a story of slipping into a subculture where being smart was cool. The chess club, post soviet backyard hacker pad…

I grew up going through a gifted program (in the 80s) and it was the gifted program that was the subculture i fell into that really pushed me.

Before that I was isolated and flunking out. Maybe I would eventually have found my people, but at least for me the gifted program found me, and got me on the right path at an early enough age to matter.

Btw, this was in a region where intellectual capability and success was not as celebrated as it is in the Bay area.

Re: California's most neglected group of students: the gifted ones

#370

Post by didibus »

hintymad wrote: post #162
laidoffamazon wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s really strange that you have such emotional reactions to the concept of equity while my Indian middle class IIT educated dad who experienced Indian institutional failure in the 70s and 80s never really cared about if me or my sibling were in the G&T program. What separates you from the people that didn’t make it out?

I don't care about G&T program per se, either. Nor did my country have it when I grew up. I do care about education. I guess my fundamental assumption is that when everyone maximizes their full potential, the outcome will naturally be different. So, pushing students to realize their potential will be against equity, but will be the best way to minimize the equity gap. Now the nuances for us in the US specifically: th…

And adding a bit more info, because I hate seeing people get misled about what equity is arguing for.

The key difference of equity with equal opportunity is that equal opportunity provides the same resources/treatment to everyone, while equity recognizes that people start from different positions and may need different levels or types of support to reach the same opportunities.

Equity is about ensuring everyone has a fair chance to succeed according to their own potential and efforts, not about guaranteeing identical outcomes.

Post reply on HN