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

891–900 of 922 posts

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

#891

Post by gautamdivgi »

whatshisface wrote: post #3

> I agree that it is unacceptable to have eighth grade Algebra I classes and gifted education programs that disproportionately exclude Black and brown children. But if equity is the goal, we should be mandating that every eighth grader takes Algebra I—and then structure the entire pre-K to seventh grade student experience to ensure this is a legitimate possibility for every child. Since when does equity mean everyone…

I did my school in India and algebra is started in 8th grade along with geometry and proofs

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

#892

Post by thegrimmest »

corrral wrote: post #717
thegrimmest wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it can, but it doesn't follow that these studies are justification for removing accountability from individuals, their households, culture, and practices. Nor does it follow that the solutions are not found in changes to individual behaviour.

> but it doesn't follow that these studies are justification for removing accountability from individuals, their households, culture, and practices. Cool. I never called for that, so we're not disagreeing. > Nor does it follow that the solutions are not found in changes to individual behaviour. This is one of those things that's both true and useless.

> true and useless.

I'm not sure it is useless. If the problems are individual, not systemic, then the solutions lie with individual accountability, not systemic change, right?

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

#893

Post by nerdponx »

gilbetron wrote: post #870
chaostheory wrote: post #814

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason children are “sliced up” by age is because of their lack of maturity. Consequently, if you mix younger children with older, more physically developed children what will inevitably happen is a lot of bullying.

Anecdotally, as a parent, I've found the opposite to be more true. We have several schools that are k-8 in my city, but the majority split 6-8 into middle school. Talking to parents of the k-8 schools, bullying is almost non existent. Not true in the traditional middle school. Some kids are more or less mature than others as they mature, and it helps to have options for friends. Also, kids weren't split into single y…

I wonder if keeping the older kids around the younger kids causes them to subconsciously inhibit their "wild teenager" behavior.

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

#894

Post by thegrimmest »

SamPatt wrote: post #873
thegrimmest wrote: post #703

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Children are agents. And children / adults aren't a binary thing, they progress along a spectrum and if we never give them the ability to make their own choices how on earth do we expect them to be independent adults? Why do we need non-conformists? I don't care about what you need or what society needs. You lack compassion for the individual. They aren't hurting anyone by choosing a different life path. They can sur…

> Children are agents

Not really? They don't get to make their own decisions about any meaningful aspect of their lives, and can be lawfully imprisoned, punished, and controlled by their parents. Children have just a few more rights than pets. This has been true for all of history.

> And children / adults aren't a binary thing

Yes, they are. Off the top of my head: once you are legally able to make and be held responsible for your own decisions, can't be punitively confined against your will without due process, are able to enter into legal agreements, and do not need a guardian, you are an adult. Until then, you are a child. These things normally happen around the age of majority, which is 18 in most places [1].

I'm not suggesting that children never be given the opportunity to make their own choices, quite the opposite in fact. I'm suggesting that children be conditioned to the realities of work and life from an early age. The capability to tolerate dull, monotonous, boring work is essential to accomplish just about anything. This is the skill of delaying gratification, and its importance can hardly be overstated.

> They can survive the world just fine without having the official educational path shoved down their throat.

Just how much education do you think is optional to "survive in the world just fine"? Literacy? Numeracy?

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority

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

#896

Post by SpaceManNabs »

bfaviero wrote: post #415

I grew up as a dirt poor immigrant. The only reason I got into MIT, and am successful today, was because of the gifted programs that allowed me to stand out from the other mediocre students at the schools. Were most of my gifted classmates wealthy? Yes. But being among them did more for my social mobility than anything else the school ever did.

I posted my similar story in a separate comment. It is truly a shame that we walk two worlds that people refuse to understand.

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

#897

Post by tremon »

user_7832 wrote: post #735
silicon2401 wrote: post #732

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because we are dealing with a group which is motivated by ideology. It's a religion to them. There really is no simpler way to say it than this, and it raises the question: how do you even make progress with a group who bases decisions on dogma rather than reason?

> There really is no simpler way to say it than this, and it raises the question: how do you even make progress with a group who bases decisions on dogma rather than reason? If someone were to not have read the above comments, this argument could be very easily used to support the opposing (political) stance as well. I suppose most humans are just emotion driven - though this need not be a bug.

Dogma is not synonymous with emotion.

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

#898

Post by tremon »

zozbot234 wrote: post #701
MockObject wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does social determination include culture? That's a greater determinant of outcomes than skin color, as the example of outcomes between African Americans and Nigerian immigrants indicates.

To be very clear about it, this is all the more impressive because Nigeria is, by and large, still a pre-industrial society. The differences in basic worldview and outlook (including attitudes towards education) brought by industrialization and modern economic development (often misattributed to "Whiteness" in divisive political rhetoric) are absolutely huge and easily overwhelm any model where "skin color" or "genet…

Why do we immediately assume that that's "impressive" and not "telling"? Isn't that assumption plain old American/Western exceptionalism?

Perhaps the hypotheses should be "maybe there is something in Nigerian/pre-industrial culture that allows children to thrive more than in American/industrialized culture"?

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

#899

Post by malloryerik »

mlyle wrote: post #888
malloryerik wrote: post #829

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about "flipped" classes, where students learn independently with electronic media, so at whatever speed and level they can handle, while teachers support them by reviewing their work, mentoring and tutoring?

Flipping classes is interesting, but it has problems. Even trying to rely on outside media, it's still much more labor intensive for teachers. And you need a more motivated student body than the typical middle school or high school student. The small quizzes you include to make sure that students consumed the flipped content beg for exploiting and cheating, even with randomization. Finally, it's not really clear how…

Thanks for this answer, it's quite illuminating.

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

#900

Post by jacobolus »

TexanFeller wrote: post #809
jacobolus wrote: post #760

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take almost any “academically gifted” student and start looking into their biography, and you’ll find a shitload of preparation. As a general rule (to which, sure, you can find rare exceptions if you really hunt) the more “gifted” the student, the more hands-on help and attention from experts they had. Even for those without significant expert help, the “gifted” students are the ones who spent a ton more time thinkin…

Passion for a subject can indeed propel you far ahead of your peers in that subject, but intelligence is what allows passion to continue and grow. No matter how much time you spend preparing the dumb kids they will struggle with difficult(or often easy) subjects and get frustrated - because of this passion will never develop, and it’s entirely reasonable to not become passionate about something you’re not capable of…

> developed a passion for that and computer programming and became a voracious reader of everything I could find on it in the school library, acquiring knowledge far beyond my grade level

This is a huge amount of “preparation”, as far as I am concerned. It’s not as effective as working with an expert tutor/coach, but it still adds up over time. (And good job preparing yourself without much help!)

The wealthier kids in your town who spent their time on whatever else were less well prepared than you (academically; they might have been better prepared for schmoozing or playing sports or whatever).

But if you had wanted to be a child prodigy or world-class competitor in something as a teenager, you likely would have needed significant expert help.

> No matter how much time you spend preparing the dumb kids they will struggle

If the kids are dramatically struggling, they are likely significantly under-prepared for the work they are expected to do. But it is not true that no matter how much time you spend you cannot make a difference. Kids testing in the 10th percentile can if tutored 1:1 for a year or two surpass the 80th percentile kids taught in an ordinary class. Regular 1:1 tutoring is extraordinarily much better than other methods of instruction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_2_sigma_problem

Post reply on HN