5 ms·

The lack of offering for good students is already a major issue at every step of the education system as it is, closing these classes is a major step backward a

The lack of offering for good students is already a major issue at every step of the education system as it is, closing these classes is a major step backward and "fuck you" to good students (especially with such a lame justification). If you have a rock in place of a brain there's always some program to keep you in the education system but at the other side of the spectrum if you reach the top 10% of students "that's it you won the game" and you're doomed to utter boredome until university. This is enormously demotivating. I was in this situation all the way until university (consistantly achieving the best grade without putting any effort into it) and the lack of mental stimulation took a massive toll on my mental health, especially during high school but also middle school to a lesser extend. Looking back at my scholarity I think it was mostly fine until age ~12 because until then school is mostly a fun daycare to meet friends so it's no big deal if the educational content is low or trivial, but then the next 7 years (which corresponds to middle and high school in my country) could have easily been compressed into 4 as far as I'm concerned. But the possibility to do it simply doesn't exist.

yarcob 6y ago
A program for the gifted is not very useful if it's just a program for white students in practice.
- endtime 6y ago
  Not useful to whom?
  - yarcob 6y ago
    Not useful for the many gifted students who are not white.
    - briefcomment 6y ago
      You don't usually get left out of gifted programs if you're not white and score well.
    - iso1210 6y ago
      So isn't the problem that those gifted students aren't being picked up?
    - merpnderp 6y ago
      Why wouldn’t black and brown kids get any use out of these classes? Are you saying only white and “white adjacent” kids can learn faster? If so you might want to rethink your preconceptions.
    - dillondoyle 6y ago
      There is a lot of research showing lower scores for tests for BIPOC, even from kindergarten where there isn't a clear education gap already established. There's also a lot of history of using these types of tests to discriminate - at the worst Nazi's killing children with low scores. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-black-white-test-score-gap-why-it-persists-and-what-can-be-done/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-black-white-test-scor... https://www.ted.com/talks/stefan_c_dombrowski_the_dark_history_of_iq_tests/transcript?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/stefan_c_dombrowski_the_dark_histo...
    - ALittleLight 6y ago
      Just curious - would you guess Asian students were under or over represented among those classes? I haven't seen any data on it, but I know how I'd bet... Reason I bring it up is, you seem to be implying the classes were favoring white students, and if that were true presumably you expect they disadvantage Asian students. Is that what you think?
      - yarcob 6y ago
        Am I the only one who read the article? > A district analysis of the program found that more than 70 percent of students enrolled in the program were white and Asian, even though nearly 80 percent of all Boston public school students are Hispanic and Black. Just from these two numbers you can see that a white/asian student is ~10x more likely to end up in the program than a black/hispanic student. So to me it definitely looks like the classes are favoring white and asian students. (Can't say much about white vs. asian because the article doesn't say much about them) The article doesn't explain why this difference is there, and I don't think there's an easy explanation, but it's defintely something where you should look closely at the criteria for picking students, because it sure looks like some students are at a systemic disadvantage.
        ALittleLight 6y ago
        I also read the article and I don't understand why you're asking. As you yourself elaborate the article doesn't clarify the breakdown between Asian and white students. It's possible that Asian students are under or over represented based only on the text. Of course, I think it's reasonable to assume that Asian students are over represented because Asian students are usually over represented in academic achievement. The comment I'm replying to suggests that the system favors white students. I'm pointing out that a system that favored white students probably wouldn't over represent Asian students in advanced programs, as, I assume, Boston Public Schools probably do. In general, I get annoyed at the pretense that there is something strange, mysterious, or maybe racist going on when the explanation is obvious and well understood. Asian people typically outperform white people on standardized tests. White people typically outperform black and Hispanic people on standardized tests. What a shock that on systems based on or like standardized tests (schools) Asians do better than whites who in turn do better than blacks and Hispanics! I wonder what incredibly complicated "systemic disadvantage" explains this? Or, maybe, it's just the simple, observable, and widely documented fact I alluded to before. "It's defintely something where you should look closely at the criteria for picking students, because it sure looks like some students are at a systemic disadvantage" - The article explains the process. There is a test given to third graders. Students who score highly on the test are placed in a lottery to randomly select students who will be allowed to apply and join the program. Most of the students (116/143) who applied after the lottery were accepted. I agree that it is worth checking on racial demographics on each of the steps of the process. For example, if 70% of high scores on the test were earned by black and Hispanic students but only 20% of black and Hispanic students were admitted to the program, with the remainder being rejected due to "losing" the lottery or having their applications denied for some reason - that would be an enormous red flag, and, without some explanation I cannot imagine, likely evidence of a terrible racist act by the people organizing the system. Would you agree though, that if the proportion of black and Hispanic students ultimately admitted to the program roughly corresponded to the proportion who achieved high scores on the admissions test, that racism was likely not the explanation for what is observed here?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

yarcob 6y ago

A program for the gifted is not very useful if it's just a program for white students in practice.

endtime 6y ago
Not useful to whom?
- yarcob 6y ago
  Not useful for the many gifted students who are not white.
  - briefcomment 6y ago
    You don't usually get left out of gifted programs if you're not white and score well.
  - iso1210 6y ago
    So isn't the problem that those gifted students aren't being picked up?
  - merpnderp 6y ago
    Why wouldn’t black and brown kids get any use out of these classes? Are you saying only white and “white adjacent” kids can learn faster? If so you might want to rethink your preconceptions.
  - dillondoyle 6y ago
    There is a lot of research showing lower scores for tests for BIPOC, even from kindergarten where there isn't a clear education gap already established. There's also a lot of history of using these types of tests to discriminate - at the worst Nazi's killing children with low scores. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-black-white-test-score-gap-why-it-persists-and-what-can-be-done/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-black-white-test-scor... https://www.ted.com/talks/stefan_c_dombrowski_the_dark_history_of_iq_tests/transcript?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/stefan_c_dombrowski_the_dark_histo...
  - ALittleLight 6y ago
    Just curious - would you guess Asian students were under or over represented among those classes? I haven't seen any data on it, but I know how I'd bet... Reason I bring it up is, you seem to be implying the classes were favoring white students, and if that were true presumably you expect they disadvantage Asian students. Is that what you think?
    - yarcob 6y ago
      Am I the only one who read the article? > A district analysis of the program found that more than 70 percent of students enrolled in the program were white and Asian, even though nearly 80 percent of all Boston public school students are Hispanic and Black. Just from these two numbers you can see that a white/asian student is ~10x more likely to end up in the program than a black/hispanic student. So to me it definitely looks like the classes are favoring white and asian students. (Can't say much about white vs. asian because the article doesn't say much about them) The article doesn't explain why this difference is there, and I don't think there's an easy explanation, but it's defintely something where you should look closely at the criteria for picking students, because it sure looks like some students are at a systemic disadvantage.
      - ALittleLight 6y ago
        I also read the article and I don't understand why you're asking. As you yourself elaborate the article doesn't clarify the breakdown between Asian and white students. It's possible that Asian students are under or over represented based only on the text. Of course, I think it's reasonable to assume that Asian students are over represented because Asian students are usually over represented in academic achievement. The comment I'm replying to suggests that the system favors white students. I'm pointing out that a system that favored white students probably wouldn't over represent Asian students in advanced programs, as, I assume, Boston Public Schools probably do. In general, I get annoyed at the pretense that there is something strange, mysterious, or maybe racist going on when the explanation is obvious and well understood. Asian people typically outperform white people on standardized tests. White people typically outperform black and Hispanic people on standardized tests. What a shock that on systems based on or like standardized tests (schools) Asians do better than whites who in turn do better than blacks and Hispanics! I wonder what incredibly complicated "systemic disadvantage" explains this? Or, maybe, it's just the simple, observable, and widely documented fact I alluded to before. "It's defintely something where you should look closely at the criteria for picking students, because it sure looks like some students are at a systemic disadvantage" - The article explains the process. There is a test given to third graders. Students who score highly on the test are placed in a lottery to randomly select students who will be allowed to apply and join the program. Most of the students (116/143) who applied after the lottery were accepted. I agree that it is worth checking on racial demographics on each of the steps of the process. For example, if 70% of high scores on the test were earned by black and Hispanic students but only 20% of black and Hispanic students were admitted to the program, with the remainder being rejected due to "losing" the lottery or having their applications denied for some reason - that would be an enormous red flag, and, without some explanation I cannot imagine, likely evidence of a terrible racist act by the people organizing the system. Would you agree though, that if the proportion of black and Hispanic students ultimately admitted to the program roughly corresponded to the proportion who achieved high scores on the admissions test, that racism was likely not the explanation for what is observed here?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]