Most active commenters
  • frmersdog(3)
  • couchdb_ouchdb(3)

←back to thread

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

(www.latimes.com)
412 points tafda | 12 comments | 26 Nov 24 16:53 UTC | HN request time: 0.632s | source | bottom
Show context
csa ◴[26 Nov 24 17:25 UTC] No.42247695[source]▶
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 does not afford equality of opportunities is a fool’s game that ends with Bergeron-esque levels of absurdity.

Imho, the only viable/main solution is to acknowledge that we all aren’t equal, we don’t all have access to the same opportunities, but as a country we can implement policies that lessen the imbalance.

Head Start is a good example.

Well-run gifted and talented programs in schools are also good examples.

Killing truly progressive programs for the purpose of virtue signaling is a loss for society.

replies(20): >>42247806 #>>42247816 #>>42247846 #>>42247879 #>>42247950 #>>42247987 #>>42248015 #>>42248175 #>>42248677 #>>42248849 #>>42249074 #>>42249151 #>>42249205 #>>42249364 #>>42250032 #>>42250676 #>>42250718 #>>42250987 #>>42252785 #>>42258523 #
couchdb_ouchdb ◴[26 Nov 24 17:53 UTC] No.42248015[source]▶
We just ejected from Seattle Public Schools for this reason. My daughter, as a gifted student, was basically ignored by her teachers for the last 3 years because she was smart, and therefore they didn't have to worry about her. But, by ignoring her, she atrophied. Her standardized testing scores dropped every year. She no longer cared about learning. It truly is a regression to the mean.
replies(4): >>42248125 #>>42249085 #>>42249319 #>>42249898 #
1. frmersdog ◴[26 Nov 24 18:01 UTC] No.42248125[source]▶
In what way are you certain that she's gifted?
replies(3): >>42248330 #>>42249612 #>>42249660 #
2. threatofrain ◴[26 Nov 24 18:19 UTC] No.42248330[source]▶
IMO any student that is 1-2 years ahead can be considered gifted for the purposes of parents who are thinking about how to optimize public or private education for their kids.

Based on how a lot of education systems work in the US (recognizing only discrete progress in a student), if your child is 1-2 years ahead then that's worth recognizing and start nurturing. That's about when public schools also recognize the giftedness of a student.

You don't need brilliant children to achieve this kind of advantage, just a careful eye and consistent nurturing.

replies(1): >>42248838 #
3. gowld ◴[26 Nov 24 19:07 UTC] No.42248838[source]▶
The OP strongly tries to claim (before contradicting herself in the concluding pargraph) that gifted is a major psychological difference, not merely being smart and a fast learner.
replies(1): >>42249747 #
4. couchdb_ouchdb ◴[26 Nov 24 20:20 UTC] No.42249612[source]▶
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.
replies(3): >>42249819 #>>42250765 #>>42251130 #
5. ◴[26 Nov 24 20:24 UTC] No.42249660[source]▶
6. DiggyJohnson ◴[26 Nov 24 20:32 UTC] No.42249747{3}[source]▶
Can you quote where you are seeing that I didn't get that reading at all from GP.
7. treis ◴[26 Nov 24 20:38 UTC] No.42249819[source]▶
Unrelated but I'd love to hear the story behind your user name.
8. frmersdog ◴[26 Nov 24 22:25 UTC] No.42250765[source]▶
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.)

replies(1): >>42259350 #
9. TeaBrain ◴[26 Nov 24 23:07 UTC] No.42251130[source]▶
Was this a test that a child could be voluntarily signed up for by their parents? In my district in a different state, the students were first selected based on standardized testing to then take the IQ test like exam to get into the program.
replies(1): >>42253183 #
10. couchdb_ouchdb ◴[27 Nov 24 05:23 UTC] No.42253183{3}[source]▶
I think that's correct. She was first flagged with standardized tests.
11. chipsa ◴[27 Nov 24 20:22 UTC] No.42259350{3}[source]▶
Most tests like this are IQ tests, and studying has little impact on IQ test scores, except perhaps showing where you over think things or take too much time. It might get you from 12% to 35%, but won’t get you from 12% to 70%.
replies(1): >>42261574 #
12. frmersdog ◴[28 Nov 24 01:38 UTC] No.42261574{4}[source]▶
Most IQ tests are rife with cultural biases, and can, in fact, be studied for. There's also no indication of what constitutes "passing" for Seattle's test, and how that compares to "passing" in other jurisdictions.