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

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

teachforamerica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

761–770 of 922 posts

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

#761

Post by kgwgk »

michaelt wrote: post #740
kgwgk wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's not hard to understand that "3 + 5 = 8" is not something that you'd need to literally memorize ‘Literally memorize’ as opposed to what? Counting your fingers?

Precisely. Our entire society is organised so that even university graduates are very rarely called upon to sum two single-digit numbers. Adding up purchases in a shop? The till does it automatically. Admittedly, the cashier will need to be able to make up change promptly - but a customer needn't check their change. Paying for parking? There will be a sign listing how much money you need to put in for 1 hour, 2 hours…

> Paying for parking? There will be a sign listing how much money you need to put in for 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours and so on.

Then if the maximum parking time is 3 hours, it's 10:15 and you want to know at what time you need to leave you take out a cardboard clock, set the current time, and advanced the small hand one, two, three steps. And to know whether you can afford both the parking and a coffee with the money you have on you you make two piles and keep the parking money in one pocket and the coffee money in another pocket. I got it. [I'm joking, our society is organised in such a way that you don't need to be able to read a clock or handle money.]

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

#762

Post by DAlperin »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #675
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…

This statement is contradictory >Now lets look at the second assumption, that the gifted programs provide a higher level of education. This is not true. What happens is that gifted programs get significantly higher funding than other schools and so the gifted programs can afford to give a good well rounded education, which is a good thing! You can't have it both ways. Is the education better or not?

Yeah I tripped on my words there a bit. My point is that the gifted programs have what is considered the necessities of a good well rounded education anywhere in the world. The fact that only the gifted programs have that is the flaw.

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

#763

Post by jacobolus »

thegrimmest wrote: post #703
SamPatt wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If school is work then we need to recognize the children's own agency in school, otherwise it it literally slavery. Forcing children to spend the majority of their lives working against their will leads to problems, especially among non-conformists.

I don't disagree with your characterization, but given children are not agents, and are subject to the whims of their parents, I think it's appropriate. Locking a child in their room is imprisonment, yet is widely used punitively at the whim of parents. Beating children is assault, yet operant conditioning is effective and also widely practiced towards children. It's also permitted in most jurisdictions if undue harm…

> What benefit are individuals who have not been appropriately conditioned to work, suffering, and self-sufficiency?

This ideology sounds an awful lot like fascism to me, or maybe some kind of psychopathy.

If you start looking around at the highest-leverage contributions to humanity throughout history, a disproportionate number of them come from people who weren’t “appropriately conditioned to work, suffering, and self sufficiency” (typically without getting anything for their trouble beyond satisfying their own curiosity). So if all you care about is some kind of personal benefit, then someone (often a teacher) nurturing and encouraging those people has been directly responsible for a significant part of your material well being.

But many of us recognize humans as ends in themselves, rather than tools for our personal aggrandizement or slaves to the collective.

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

#764

Post by DAlperin »

havblue wrote: post #691
DAlperin wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having been in public school for most of my life I can say unequivocally: yes. It is not uncommon for teachers to purchase books and classroom supplies out of pocket since there simply is not enough funding.

Most estimates I've seen of funding for New York students is $25k to $30k a year though. I would think that's more of a sign of incredible corruption and mismanagement and not that there isn't enough money to go around. To compare, Stuyvesant High School, the best in NYC, is $18k per student.

I would argue the point that Stuyvesant is the "best" but I don't disagree with your point. The problem is that a lot of the money ends up in the schools with the rich kids and for a lot a lot of students and schools they never see anywhere near that type of money.

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

#765

Post by chromaton »

commandlinefan wrote: post #500
wbsss4412 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Equality of outcome is not the goal of equity. That’s a straw man argument created by its detractors. People point out disparities as evidence that there aren’t equal opportunities in society. The conservative position is simply to assert that equality of opportunity exists cuz America, and if you question that you are a communist who just wants everyone to be the same.

> Equality of outcome is not the goal of equity. They actually say that it is - have you seen the famous comic where the three guys are watching the baseball game but the short guy can't see through the fence? They literally are saying the equity of outcome is the beginning and the end of their goals.

There's different versions of that meme, so please make sure you know which one you're arguing about.

Edit: a long take on all the variations, by the meme's originator! https://medium.com/@CRA1G/the-evolution-of-an-accidental-mem...

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

#766

Post by michaelt »

kgwgk wrote: post #761
michaelt wrote: post #740

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precisely. Our entire society is organised so that even university graduates are very rarely called upon to sum two single-digit numbers. Adding up purchases in a shop? The till does it automatically. Admittedly, the cashier will need to be able to make up change promptly - but a customer needn't check their change. Paying for parking? There will be a sign listing how much money you need to put in for 1 hour, 2 hours…

> Paying for parking? There will be a sign listing how much money you need to put in for 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours and so on. Then if the maximum parking time is 3 hours, it's 10:15 and you want to know at what time you need to leave you take out a cardboard clock, set the current time, and advanced the small hand one, two, three steps. And to know whether you can afford both the parking and a coffee with the money yo…

> Then if the maximum parking time is 3 hours, it's 10:15 and you want to know at what time you need to leave you take out a cardboard clock, set the current time, and advanced the small hand one, two, three steps.

Not at all - you simply count hours using your fingers.

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

#767

Post by kgwgk »

michaelt wrote: post #766
kgwgk wrote: post #761

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Paying for parking? There will be a sign listing how much money you need to put in for 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours and so on. Then if the maximum parking time is 3 hours, it's 10:15 and you want to know at what time you need to leave you take out a cardboard clock, set the current time, and advanced the small hand one, two, three steps. And to know whether you can afford both the parking and a coffee with the money yo…

> Then if the maximum parking time is 3 hours, it's 10:15 and you want to know at what time you need to leave you take out a cardboard clock, set the current time, and advanced the small hand one, two, three steps. Not at all - you simply count hours using your fingers.

Come on, use the right tool for the job!

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

#768

Post by sealaska »

thegrimmest wrote: post #703
SamPatt wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If school is work then we need to recognize the children's own agency in school, otherwise it it literally slavery. Forcing children to spend the majority of their lives working against their will leads to problems, especially among non-conformists.

I don't disagree with your characterization, but given children are not agents, and are subject to the whims of their parents, I think it's appropriate. Locking a child in their room is imprisonment, yet is widely used punitively at the whim of parents. Beating children is assault, yet operant conditioning is effective and also widely practiced towards children. It's also permitted in most jurisdictions if undue harm…

We're on a forum called "Hacker News". Would you consider hackers to fit better into the conformist or non-conformist category?

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

#769

Post by giardini »

bena wrote: post #510
giardini wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"So why not have the normal needs students helping the children with learning dysfunctions?" Sure, that's fine. >"Gifted students are special needs students. " Gifted students can usually take care of themselves.

This is how you demonstrate that you should not be making decisions about childhood education in two answers. What you are advocating is to essentially make every class a special education class serving the students with the lowest abilities. This won't bring those with learning dysfunctions up, it will only serve to bring the rest down while also building resentment towards those with dysfunctions. And even gifted s…

Nonsense. Don't put words in my mouth.

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

#770

Post by jacobolus »

dahfizz wrote: post #745
jacobolus wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Good teachers are wasted on troublemakers and class clowns It is entirely natural for children to “clown around” in a boring setting, and their lack of interest / trouble focusing reflects a societal (and school) failure to make school engaging and give them the appropriate challenges and direct feedback to keep their attention. Many of the greatest human breakthroughs were made by people who were squirmy and distr…

> It is entirely natural for children to “clown around” in a boring setting Murder, rape, and eating your children is natural. That's not a good justification. Perhaps there is a way to help children rise above these base instincts instead of giving into them?

You think 6-year-olds not paying attention to a boring classroom is comparable to rape and cannibalism?
Post reply on HN