←back to thread

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

(www.latimes.com)
412 points tafda | 3 comments | 26 Nov 24 16:53 UTC | HN request time: 0.639s | source
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 #
1. sunshowers ◴[26 Nov 24 22:16 UTC] No.42250676[source]▶
While I think each student should be challenged in ways that cause their skills to develop, unequal opportunities lead to unequal outcomes which in turn lead to unequal opportunities and so on. There isn't really a separation between opportunities and outcomes that way.

But you also have to balance this with people in such programs not thinking of themselves as superior to others. This seems really hard -- I think it needs to be made clear that the goal is equalizing academic difficulty, not special treatment.

replies(1): >>42250769 #
2. kelnos ◴[26 Nov 24 22:26 UTC] No.42250769[source]▶
I didn't think the GP was arguing that. School systems are focusing on equality of outcomes, when they should be focusing on equality of opportunities.

Gifted kids will be able to take better advantage of those opportunities and experience better outcomes. But that's ok; that should be how things work.

When you focus only on equal outcomes, you end up with the lowest common denominator, and gifted kids get bored and don't excel.

When I was growing up (80s), I was in a program for gifted kids. I do expect that I got opportunities that other kids didn't get, which is a problem. But ultimately I thrived and have become successful, and I'm sure programs like that helped. In middle school and high school I was always placed in the highest-level classes (there were 4 levels), and I am certain I wouldn't be as successful had I been given the same instruction as kids in the bottom level or two.

My outcomes were certainly better, but as long as everyone has the opportunity for advanced instruction -- if they have an aptitude and can qualify for it -- I think that's fine.

I'm sure there was some inequality of opportunity when I was in grade school, and that sort of thing does need to be fixed. But we can't do so in a way that assumes all kids are equally gifted and talented. That's just not how people work.

replies(1): >>42250911 #
3. sunshowers ◴[26 Nov 24 22:40 UTC] No.42250911[source]▶
To be clear I think the goal should not be to equalize opportunities or outcomes. I think the goal should be to equalize the amount of challenge each student experiences, wherever they are. (It's like strength training.)