←back to thread

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

(www.latimes.com)
412 points tafda | 5 comments | 26 Nov 24 16:53 UTC | HN request time: 0.524s | source
Show context
atomicUpdate ◴[26 Nov 24 17:27 UTC] No.42247713[source]▶
> There’s little doubt that racism played a role in identifying children as gifted even though the label was based on supposedly objective criteria.

Why has the LA Times settled on racist teachers as the only reason for the skew in enrollment numbers, and why aren’t teachers upset the LA Times are calling them racists?

I’m constantly surprised how often accusations like this are thrown around and how little pushback there is by those accused of it.

replies(9): >>42247758 #>>42247763 #>>42247893 #>>42247947 #>>42248025 #>>42248046 #>>42248127 #>>42248199 #>>42248778 #
ironlake ◴[26 Nov 24 17:43 UTC] No.42247893[source]▶
> settled on racist teachers

If the population of gifted kids is statistically over-represented by white kids, then one of these must be true:

• The test doesn't measure giftedness, but rather level of education. So we would expect kids from worse schools to perform worse. This is institutional racism. The opportunity is not equal. • Gifted kids from minority communities don't have equal access to the test or the classes. This is institutional racism. The opportunity is not equal. • White kids are smarter. They all took the same test, white kids came out on top. This is a racist belief with a millennia of discredited science to back it up.

No racist teacher required.

replies(3): >>42247944 #>>42247952 #>>42248169 #
surgical_fire ◴[26 Nov 24 17:48 UTC] No.42247952[source]▶
> They all took the same test, white kids came out on top. This is a racist belief

I am not even white, but something there in your rationale does not make sense. If they all took the same test and white kids were on top, how is this a belief?

Is there a word missing somewhere? Is the implication that the test was rigged? It is an honest question, I couldn't follow the rationale there.

replies(1): >>42248133 #
1. chimpanzee ◴[26 Nov 24 18:02 UTC] No.42248133[source]▶
you missed this relevant (albeit, unspecific) fragment when you extracted the quote:

> with a millennia of discredited science to back it up

replies(2): >>42248224 #>>42249404 #
2. scarmig ◴[26 Nov 24 18:09 UTC] No.42248224[source]▶
The third prong is a bit badly posed: descriptively, white kids test better than black kids, and each of the three prongs offers an explanation. The third prong points to a discredited belief of genetic inferiority; by positioning the three prongs as exhaustive, the author structures the argument such that if you don't accept either of the first two prongs, then you must be a racist.
replies(1): >>42248375 #
3. chimpanzee ◴[26 Nov 24 18:23 UTC] No.42248375[source]▶
Perhaps. I didn’t really read that much into GGP’s comment. I just wanted to point out that the comment does (minimally) rebut scientific racism. And by selectively omitting that rebuttal in the quote, GP makes it appear as if the denial of scientific racism is just a claim of faith.
4. surgical_fire ◴[26 Nov 24 20:00 UTC] No.42249404[source]▶
But you mentioned that a test was taken. Is the test somehow unscientific? Is it rigged to favor white kids? Are you speaking of a hypothetical test that doesn't exist and was never applied?

If a test was actually taken, and it is not rigged, how can it not be a sort of scientific evidence?

replies(1): >>42250244 #
5. chimpanzee ◴[26 Nov 24 21:28 UTC] No.42250244[source]▶
I did not.