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)

#451

Post by joshuahaglund » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 6:15 PM UTC

DAlperin wrote: post #335

Alright, I don't imagine this will be a common take here but here goes. I am a product of the New York City public school system. I have spent the majority of my life as a student in it. The New York city public school system is both the largest public school system in the country and the most segregated. The argument about removing gifted programs are built on the faulty assumptions that the students in those progra…

I was not in the gifted program but most of my friends and younger siblings were. I agree with this assessment. They had access to after school programs and opportunities that were not offered to the rest of us. Their classes gave a higher GPA for the same results in regular classes despite (in some cases) teaching basically the same thing as regular classes, from the same book. Regular classes were the same workload but less creativity, enthusiasm, and support.

I later found out that test scores didn't entirely determine placement. Many of my peers were put in the gifted program after a parent advocated for them.

So yes, I appreciate these efforts to equalize opportunity. I'd like that the lessons offered in gifted programs can be offered to all students

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

#452

Post by corrral » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 6:15 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.

Me neither, because I don't live in the part of town ~10 miles away where this is the case.

Why don't I live there, even though the location would be more convenient and has far more nearby parks and businesses, the housing is dirt-cheap, they have better access to public transit than we do, the area's more walkable/bike-able, et c? The schools are bad.

Why are the schools bad? Because people like me (that is, people whose kids have a low-stress life outside of school) won't move there. Digging out of that hole is nearly impossible. It amounts to "gentrify things all to hell" (which just shifts the problem around rather than actually solving it) or "fix huge social and economic problems the US has".

In either case, you can't do much about it by focusing on the schools themselves.

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

#453

Post by tremon » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 6:15 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?

I don't really know many details as I've only ever interacted with the school system here as a pupil, but I think the three major differences between here (NL) and the USA are:

Firstly, by not having extreme poverty. You can't solve at school the problems that exist at home. We have adequate housing and benefits systems, and a minimum wage that people can actually live on. In addition, we have local intervention teams (and budgets) that try to fix problems that children encounter in their home situations (such as violence, substance abuse, etc).

Secondly, by banning private schools: all schools are funded directly by the government based on number of pupils. This makes sure that the rich don't withdraw their children from society, and thus makes sure they have a stake in public education.

Thirdly, by investing heavily in teachers' education. Many teachers here have two degrees: one in their teaching subject, and one in pedagogy or psychology.

That said, I've heard many people say that our education system isn't what it used to be either, mainly because of two changes:

- a decade or so ago the government closed all special-needs schools (or at least the majority) and moved those children into the general school population. This put a lot of strain on the teachers, because they now had to deal not just with slow learners, but also children with learning disabilities and often behavioural problems. This put a lot of stress especially on the lower end of the spectrum.

- the recent appearance of many after-school tutoring programs. Since these are privately funded and operated, they bring a touch of the US' problems: since the rich now have a way to focus their money on only their own offspring, inequality in school achievements is rising.

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

#454

Post by cyberlurker » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 6:15 PM UTC

andrewla wrote: post #428

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…

NYC schools are not funded by property taxes. The city and state fund the DoE and that money is disbursed to schools throughout the district without relationship to the geographic source of the funds. PTAs (especially in wealth neighborhoods) also contribute huge amounts of money to their local schools, often even paying for the salary of extra teachers or classroom assistants. NYC schools are terrible for any number…

Sorry, the two comments in my one post were not related. You are right, I was referring to most suburb public schools.

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

#455

Post by masklinn » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 6:16 PM UTC

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 does that help anyone?

It doesn't, in ways which are eerily reminiscent of America's falling out of love with public parks and pools. Which completely coincidentally followed their desegregation.

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

#456

Post by ricardobeat » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 6:17 PM UTC

DAlperin wrote: post #335

Alright, I don't imagine this will be a common take here but here goes. I am a product of the New York City public school system. I have spent the majority of my life as a student in it. The New York city public school system is both the largest public school system in the country and the most segregated. The argument about removing gifted programs are built on the faulty assumptions that the students in those progra…

Thanks for sharing this perspective.

I was wondering why it seems to be such a big topic for the US. Where I’m from, gifted classes are for 1% of the kids and about socializing and keeping them engaged - their life outcomes are not statistically likely to be better than the “normal” children either way.

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

#457

Post by rootusrootus » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 6:17 PM UTC

somethoughts wrote: post #297

citizenkeen wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My MIL is a teacher, and she's taught at wealthy schools and poor schools. Wealthy schools have more money, but they actually often have less - if a school's average socio-economic class drops below a certain point, there's a slew of federal funding available and she often had more resources in a poor school than a wealthy one. The poorest schools are often the middle-class - those too wealthy to qualify for the fund…

Anec-datally this rings true to me. I think in wealthier neighborhoods there is also a lot more competitiveness for PTA and school board seats from parents who are very highly credentialed (i.e. MBA, former product managers, lawyers) that have electively taken time off/early retirement to have more quality time with their kids. There's some sort of institutional knowledge coming from the business world on how to run…

On the flip side, I have yet to see a really well-functioning PTA. Usually because it's a bunch of hyper competitive MBAs, CEOs, and lawyers who adore parliamentarian ceremony and only secondarily have any interest in marshaling resources in support of students.

I think it might actually work better if it were just properly educated average people running that show.

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

#458

Post by chicob » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 6:17 PM UTC

[...] school systems are making the decision to contract or eliminate their gifted education and advanced academic offerings. On the surface, this seems logical. If I’m leading a system in which the population of eighth graders taking Algebra I has a disproportionate number of white and Asian students, then eliminating Algebra I as an offering for eighth graders looks like an obvious pathway to equity.

This doesn't seem logical at all. It sounds like sweeping under the rug. I'm assuming that what is obvious here is that these programs reproduce inequity, and are not a cause of it.

[...] As these scholars argue shutting down gifted programs only deepens the inequities for brilliant, underrepresented students of color and adds another barrier to unlocking their genius.

Does one really need scholars for this?

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

#459

Post by brewdad » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 6:17 PM UTC

lupire wrote: post #241

tonguez wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“…it is unacceptable to have eighth grade Algebra I classes and gifted education programs that disproportionately exclude Black and brown children.” a definition of exclude is “deny (someone) access to or bar (someone) from a place, group, or privilege.” no one is barring access to these classes on the basis race. can you even imagine that? “sorry, you’re not allowed to take this class; you’re black.” it’s like every…

What you don't understand is that advanced classes have limited seats available compared to students who want them.

Not really. Any teacher qualified to teach HS math should be able to teach anything up to pre-Calc. If you have more Algebra students ahead of grade level than usual, you shift a teacher away from pre-Algebra and into teaching Algebra I.

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

#460

Post by smachiz » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 6:18 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…

You're excluding the fundraising capacity and ancillary services funded and paid for by the PTA.

Wealthy neighborhoods have PTA budgets that are in the hundreds of thousands/millions. They pay for after school activities, language immersion programs, music, sports, you name it.

It is shocking the discrepancy between neighborhoods in NYC. Average donation per pupil might be $20 in a poor neighborhood and $5,000 in a wealthy one.