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

371–380 of 553 posts

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

#371

Post by tstrimple »

jjmarr wrote: post #95

Speaking as someone who attended a public high school with competitive admissions, the students are much more important than the teachers or the education itself. Being around a group of talented and driven people motivates you to do well. I also previously attended special education when my academic abilities were questionable, at best. I benefitted from intensive education on phonics and basic literacy skills, rath…

> Speaking as someone who attended a public high school with competitive admissions, the students are much more important than the teachers or the education itself. Being around a group of talented and driven people motivates you to do well.

Which ultimately means it's up to the parents more than anything. I suspect that's why magnet schools perform well. The parents interested and capable of going out of their way to put their child into a good school district are more likely to also be invested in their child's educational outcomes which can make all the difference.

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

#372

Post by mlyle »

zozbot234 wrote: post #368
mlyle wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

Again, citations for the efficacy of scripting and recitation would be appreciated.

> The quick feedback cycle for every answer is really the most critical point.

I agree that quick feedback improves performance and morale. We close that loop pretty quickly in my classroom most of the time.

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

#373

Post by beej71 »

bunderbunder wrote: post #107

As an alum of gifted programs with many friends who were also alums, I think most of us would say, "good riddance". In fact, I'm pretty sure the strongest haters of gifted programs I know are people who used to be in them. For most of us, the reality was that our status as relatively studious kids created a situation where our area of greatest need was social-emotional development, not intellectual development. Gifte…

This resonates for me. I really, really did not like being in GATE in the 1980s for the same reasons.

Also, now as a college instructor, I really like flipped classrooms.

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

#374

Post by hintymad »

didibus wrote: post #363
hintymad wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

Isn't this equal opportunity, which means equality, which I also support?

> The goal is to lift everyone up, not to hold anyone back.

I thought California, or at least SFUSD, did exactly the opposite. For instance, they pushed the algebra to Grade 8 (or grade 9?) and geometry to grade 9, in the name of equity. That is, they try to restrict the access from even the ordinary kids (many kids have no problems studying algebra before grade 8) in the name of helping the challenged.

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

#375

Post by chowchowchow »

sangnoir wrote: post #343
DiggyJohnson wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there is a high correlation between intelligence (no matter how you measure it throughout childhood) and achievement in adulthood. A huge, massive difference. Obviously there are exceptions. Somebody seeming like a bad student is not one. Do you really need a citation for that?

My question was specifically about the outliers: has any research been done if outlying achievements go hand in hand with outlier IQs? Without any research or evidence, it's an area prone to a Just World fallacy where extraordinary achievements "ought" to be achieved by extraordinary talent. Rephrasing my doubts in perhaps an oversimplified manner: given the correlation you mentioned: is it reasonable to expect the t…

No, not to a person. There can be some stupendously dumb billionaires, especially since inheritance is a thing. I would however expect the average intelligence however-measured of the 100 richest "self-made" (lets just say who didn't themself inherit a generational amount of wealth) individuals in the US to be higher than a 100-person random sample of the population.

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

#376

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD »

eitally wrote: post #187
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…

For better or for worse, when I was in school in the 80s and early 90s, tracking started in about 4th grade (not counting kids who skipped earlier grades entirely). I essentially had about 90% the same kids in all my classes from 4th grade through high school graduation (not counting the influx from other feeder schools that joined in 6th & 9th). The result was less distraction in the classroom because everyone wante…

>the social/emotional maturity of kids these days far exceeds generations past.

I thought they were plagued by anxiety?

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

#377

Post by philwelch »

sangnoir wrote: post #343
DiggyJohnson wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there is a high correlation between intelligence (no matter how you measure it throughout childhood) and achievement in adulthood. A huge, massive difference. Obviously there are exceptions. Somebody seeming like a bad student is not one. Do you really need a citation for that?

My question was specifically about the outliers: has any research been done if outlying achievements go hand in hand with outlier IQs? Without any research or evidence, it's an area prone to a Just World fallacy where extraordinary achievements "ought" to be achieved by extraordinary talent. Rephrasing my doubts in perhaps an oversimplified manner: given the correlation you mentioned: is it reasonable to expect the t…

When you’re talking about outliers, it’s not an even-or situation. It’s not that being diligent is more valuable than being smart. Lots of people are smart, but the ones who are exceptionally smart and exceptionally diligent—outliers on two dimensions—are usually the most successful.

It’s also worth pointing out that people who e.g. study algebra in eighth grade and calculus in high school aren’t actually outliers; they’re maybe the top 1/3 or so of the class in terms of mathematics ability.

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

#378

Post by zozbot234 »

mlyle wrote: post #372
zozbot234 wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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. Again, citations for the efficacy of scripting and recitation would be appreciated. > The quick feedback cycle for every answer is really the most critical point. I agree that quick feedback imp…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Follow_Through_(project) for starters, one of the largest educational studies ever conducted: "The results of Follow Through did not show how models that showed little or no effects could be improved. But they did show which models—as suggested by the less than ideal conditions of the experiment—had some indications of success. Of these models, Siegfried Engelmann's Direct Instruction method demonstrated the highest gains in the comparative study. [T]he models which showed positive effects were largely basic skills models. ..."

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

#379

Post by roguecoder »

mattnewton wrote: post #307
roguecoder wrote: post #297

The whole point of "gifted" was that these are kids who are disproportionally likely to drop out of school, engage in risky behavior, get pregnant, get bad grades, etc. The problem is that A. they called it "gifted" so people thought it was something you _wanted_ your kids to be and B. the screening test they used was the IQ test, which you can massively improve your score on by studying for it. So parents were deter…

where did you get the impression the genesis for "gifted" programs was to solve high iq problem kids? this is the first I'm hearing of that.

There were two strains, to be fair: there were eugenicist arguments as well, and some authors from the turn of the twentieth century go on at length about how the problem children probably aren't _actually_ gifted because truly superior people wouldn't misbehave. But for example, from "Classroom Problems in the Education of Gifted Children" (1917):

"It is just as important for the bright child to acquire correct habits of work as it is for the dull or average child to do so, whereas in the ordinary class the brightest children are likely to have from a fourth to a half of their time in which to loaf, and never or rarely have the opportunity of knowing what it means to work up to the limit of their powers. The consequent habits of indolence, carelessness and inattention, which are so likely to be formed under such conditions, might be avoided by the provision, for such children, of special courses of such a nature as to fit their peculiar characteristics."

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

#380

Post by [deleted] »

csa wrote: post #177
thimkerbell wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What U.S. state has the best resources for kids at the gifted end of the spectrum?

> What U.S. state has the best resources for kids at the gifted end of the spectrum? Pretty much no state at this point. That said, specific school districts can be responsive. Usually this is in expensive neighborhoods with relatively well-off residents. These schools serve as de facto private schools even through they are technically public.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN