This is the result of woke policies in public schools. They already removed gifted programs and magnet schools because most of the students benefiting from the programs were White and Asian (more Asian). For the same reason they are trying to remove calculus [1][2]. And the UC system will stop accepting SAT scores [3].
The whole "woke" angle is just a case of admittedly convenient misdirection. Government schools have always consistently pushed for mediocrity and getting rid of any sort of accountability re: educational outcomes, and this latest instance is no different. Standards and accountability can only be achieved and sustained via meaningful competition (such as 'magnet' schools striving to compete with private educational offerings).
Because the root cause is that the government has a monopoly on public schools. It is only a recent development that the indoctrination of the captive audience has become enticing for woke proselytizers.
The issue with gifted children isn't about indoctrinating them to whatever beliefs. It's the destructive belief that high academic achievement is the result of some unfair "privilege" which they seek to counter by limiting opportunities for advancement.
Yes, of course. Evangelists are happy to use all the tools at their disposal - both overt preaching and structural changes that conflate equality of outcome with fairness regardless of the means of achieving it.
If parents had a way of avoiding government schools, it would be far less enticing for those with an agenda to capture them.
Being able to attain high academic achievement IS privilege itself, a far far more real one than most privileges people jaw on about. Your standardized test scores to a large extent determine your quality of life.
On some level it’s positively shocking that gifted classes have lasted as long as they have. Looked at from a thousand mile out view a TON of the woke agenda is direct and indirect attacks on those that perform well on standardized tests.
Why would having "gifted" classes detract from other students? In the case of OP's daughter giving her permission to simply skip math class and self-tutor in an empty classroom (by e.g. self-studying a more advanced textbook) would probably be an improvement over having to sit through a class that's below her level.
Once you do that less "privileged" students also benefit, since the teaching resources being spent on that bored student will be freed up to focus on the smaller class of students that need more assistance.
I don't see why it's a given that this is guaranteed to result in worse outcomes by any measure, even "woke" ones that might consider it a loss if OP's daughter pulls ahead further from the median grade, even if the median also goes up as a result of better spent teaching resources.
> Why would having "gifted" classes detract from other students?
Note that I am a fan of gifted classes, but to answer your question:
1. If you pull out gifted kids from classes with simply “above average” kids, you lower the ceiling of what it means to be “the best”. As a result, the above average kids may not push themselves as hard/far. This concept is common in sports as well — the competition yields higher results.
2. The class that is left, usually an honors class, ends up moving much more slowly. A dirty little secret of teaching is that the pace of a class is limited to roughly the ability level of the bottom third of the class. Any faster, and you have lost so many people that the class can’t self-correct via peer interaction. Any slower, and you cause so many of the high performers to lose interest that motivation becomes an issue. When you pull the gifted kids out of, for example, an honors class, the level of the bottom third of that class often drops precipitously.
I personally don’t think that these are good reasons to eliminate gifted classes. I think it points to the need for more effective/efficient differentiated instruction. But that would require good teachers and good administration, and imho those things are extremely difficult to have at scale.
For 2, in the honors class, the bottom third is closer to the top once the gifted kids have left. So aren't they all able to move faster as a percentage of their capability without the gifted kids? And isn't that what should be optimized?
What usually happens, due to student teacher ratios being a thing, is that the honors class is replenished with lower ability students from the “regular” (i.e., non-honors) class, so the average is brought down fairly substantially.
Note that all of this is a non-issue if you are only pulling a few kids out of a school to go to a magnet high school or something similar.
An example of this can be seen in Japan where the gifted and motivated students are moved into magnet schools for high school, but there is relatively little negative impact on the regular high school, while the magnet high school students get an eduction that pushes their intellectual boundaries.
If you pull lots of kids from a regular class, they're also going to benefit from a narrower spread of abilities.
The more meaningful argument against this kind of fine-grained tracking is that it creates pathological incentives among teachers. Every teacher is going to want to teach the "easy" classes with more skilled kids, so the bottom level of students gets stuck with very low-quality teachers and they don't get anything near a fair chance to improve - they're basically stuck at that level.
You could fix this by training teachers better on how to actually educate slower kids effectively (direct instructional methods work very well there) but that approach is not popular either because it's seen as trivializing the teacher's job - somehow, it is a given that both students and teachers should always be left to "discover things by themselves".
> If you pull lots of kids from a regular class, they're also going to benefit from a narrower spread of abilities.
I think you’re talking in theory and not practice.
In reality, one of two things (or both) happens.
1. They pull from the “slow” class. Different places call it different things, and it’s not special ed, but it’s distinctly low levels of education. The “slow” class doesn’t benefit due to it basically serving the role of child care rather than education.
2. The “regular” class is effectively a slow class, so same as above, there is very little educating happening, just child care.
Ah, but the people getting moved into the slowest actual education benefit because they go from no education to some education, right?
No again. The modal outcome is that these threshold folks are given passing grades while learning very little, all while making the experience frustrating for the student and the teacher.
> You could fix this by training teachers better on how to actually educate slower kids effectively (direct instructional methods work very well there) but that approach is not popular either because it's seen as trivializing the teacher's job
I have seen these teachers and its potential effectiveness, but only in special ed. The biggest pay offs seem to be in elementary school with basic/fundamental literacy and numeracy.
As grade level increases, the impact of this instruction decreases substantially in terms of impressiveness largely due to limited scope.
> The more meaningful argument against this kind of fine-grained tracking is that it creates pathological incentives among teachers.
I agree with this, but not for the reasons you give.
> Every teacher is going to want to teach the "easy" classes with more skilled kids, so the bottom level of students gets stuck with very low-quality teachers and they don't get anything near a fair chance to improve - they're basically stuck at that level.
First, classes with highly skilled students are not necessarily easier. They are only easier if the teacher makes few changes to the curriculum to adjust to the class (basically lack of time or teacher laziness). Gifted classes in particular can be challenging for teachers who think that they want to teach the smartest kids because often some of the students will know more (sometimes a lot more) than the teacher about the subject. This can create very awkward moments (note that this phenomenon can also be seen at universities with students and adjuncts, sometimes even at elite schools).
Second — this is another “secret” that I think covid made less of a secret — the main function of most lower level classes beyond basic literacy and numeracy in elementary school is state-supported child care.
In reality, especially in high school, there is very little learning going on in the lower end classes. The students don’t care about the content, the students’ parents don’t care about it, and their peer groups don’t care about it. The only people who care are the teachers and admins due to standards states have set and funding tied to testing to those standards. There is essentially no product-market fit to use terms that most HNers might understand. The important thing is that the kids have a place to go while the parents work. These are terrible classes to teach.
The actual way to fix this, imho, is to meet the students and their families where they are at. Specifically, introduce them to skill sets that they may actually find useful and/or interesting. It would be ideal to pair this up with co-op working opportunities. Note that this system largely exists in Japan (where they do tracking), so this is not all just theoretical conjecture.
There are a few problems with this system.
One issue is that this type of education can be difficult to create and maintain, because the content could vary widely from school to school — a school in rural Iowa would probably focus on different skills than a school in Brooklyn. This also would make it difficult to measure, so only the local community would really know if it was working (that’s ok, imho).
Another issue is that this type of education done properly is rife with socioeconomic and race issues. For example, if you are teaching a student sales in a coop environment where they actually do sales, it’s probably prudent to teach them something like register shifting so that they can adjust their language to their audience. I will leave it to the reader to figure out why that is a minefield in the US (but probably shouldn’t be).
Apologies for the wall of text, but I think that this is an interesting topic that is poorly understood by many/most highly educated Americans. This is especially true of a lot of HNers who seem to have largely experienced schooling from a middle/upper-middle class perspective (specifically, a largely college-bound school/community).
> Second — this is another “secret” that I think covid made less of a secret — the main function of most lower level classes beyond basic literacy and numeracy in elementary school is state-supported child care.
I view this as a function of teacher quality and training, basically. My intuitive understanding is that the slowest non-special ed classes are not places that the "best", most effective teachers want to be involved with. So the incentives I pointed to in my previous comment are fully at work, and all the more so if you make the tracking more fine grained. Special ed actually helps by bringing better-trained (and more highly-paid) teachers into the picture in a way that's institutionally provided for.
You're right that a more vocational curriculum would also help some students, but that's hard to implement for the reasons you point out, and still doesn't address the underlying issues wrt. more "academic" subjects, which tend to suffer.
> I view this as a function of teacher quality and training, basically. My intuitive understanding is that the slowest non-special ed classes are not places that the "best", most effective teachers want to be involved with.
I guess this is a chicken-and-egg problem. The best teachers don’t want to be there because there are few opportunities to teach, again mostly due to student and community ambivalence. There are positive examples like those seen in the movie Stand and Deliver, but those kinds of teachers are super rare, and often the powers-that-be stack the deck against them (administrators, community, peers, etc.).
Fwiw, one can see expert teaching in low-level non-special ed classes by looking at folks researching low SES education. Most of the outcomes are basically one level of classroom failure improving to a slightly different level of classroom failure (mostly due to relatively low time on task and general ambivalence in the student and community populations).
In general, the scope of what a good teacher can do is relatively limited unless a few conditions exist:
1. Students are relatively similar in terms of ability level — that is, no wide outliers. This is not an issue if each teacher has only 3-4 students, so basically each student will get tailored instruction.
2. The students and their communities value education.
3. Relatively low student-teacher ratios. Note that good teachers get better outcomes than bad teachers even when the student-teacher ratio is bad, but the overall impact is often significantly less.
Anyway, thanks for the comments. I haven’t stretched my mental legs on this topic in a while.
I realized recently that some people have a view of education that is much more competition-oriented than my default worldview. E.g. the set of parents who want to make sure their kids do well relative to all the other kids in order to have a higher chance of success in the competitions later on in life (college, jobs, social status, wealth).
Fairness (in the sense of trying to create a level playing field and make sure nobody has unfair advantages) is important to the extent that something is a competition.
This means people who see education as competition will care about fairness - either they will want things to be truly fair or they will want any unfairness to be in their favor.
So from this point of view, special classes for kids who are already doing better can be seen as an unfair advantage (especially because there's plenty of real bias involved in determining which kids actually end up on those classes).
I think we need to fix the biased selection process and make it more possible for more kids to benefit from advanced learning opportunities, especially kids whose parents don't have the resources to take them out of public school to do something more individualized.
If you put slower kids into (legitimately) accelerated programs they just get left behind and do even worse. When you separate children into classes that proceed at different rates based on how fast they learn, everyone is actually getting their own "special classes".
Meanwhile if you try to handicap parents who care, to bring their children to the level of parents who don't care, they just take their children out of the system and put them in private schools. Except of course for the poor gifted kids stuck in public school, ironically, who you wanted to help.
I think the poster was generally referring to the fact that students who progress at a faster rate will have an advantage by simple virtue of having covered more material in school. They will be more preferred by colleges which leads to being more preferred for jobs. Basically a "rich get richer" effect.
Of course the idea that this is a bad thing (as opposed to being exactly how a merit-based system is supposed to work) is based on presupposing that higher performance was the result of unfair discrimination in the first place.
My contention is that you don't have to presuppose the higher performance was a result of higher discrimination in the first place, my contention is that you can argue that "merit" as measured by academic achievement and standardized testing is not worthy of its status.
It's clear that diversity programs lead to the intake of those who are worse test takers. Yet companies who hire more diverse people correlate to companies which have better financial outcomes for investors. Yet school systems systemically put certain students who cover lots of material and do well on tests into special classes, put them in the best schools, put them into the best jobs, in spite of this observation. These students, so the idea of merit goes, will be more productive and the benefits they have to society will trickle down to the rest, yet in practice what we see in society is a society stratified where those who are part of communities where there are fewer good test takers are disadvantaged.
My contention is more fundamental, it's an attack on the very validity of the testing itself, and testing determines who gets into programs like gifted classes. Testing in practice has the purpose of discrimination in favour of an elite few, is inherently contentious and ripe for political assault.
I self-studied advanced textbooks in the same classroom with the rest of the class. The teacher approved it though and sometimes gave me tasks she couldn't solve herself.
> Your standardized test scores to a large extent determine your quality of life.
This is largely untrue unless one defines quality of life with a very narrow set of criteria and/or lives in a relatively small echo chamber.
I know tons of people with very high scores who have very low QoL, and I know many multiples of that with mediocre scores who have very high QoL.
The skill (or maybe luck) to find a way to use the abilities one does have in order to provide high utility seems to be the common thread in the high QoL folks.
Not true. Most of European schools are govt-run, yet there are pretty good programs for "gifted" people, mainly centered around competitions, culminating in the international IMO and IOI.
A lot of education for gifted people happens outside of school: clubs, correspondence competitions (these days probably all online). Also, gifted people often learn from books.
In most large cities, there is not a single government which has a monopoly on public schools: there are generally multiple individual school districts which each try to compete for the wealthiest students. That results in some school districts being more amenable toward a focus on gifted programs and some being less so. School boards are subject to elections, which does mean that the priorities of the schools are not homogeneous.
Of course there are lots of layers of laws and bureaucracies above school districts that can apply curricula or regulations to temper this, but unlike state governments, where representatives are elected on a slate of issues and tied to political parties, school boards are elected on just 1 issue: how are they going to run the schools.
A "woke" claim asserts that some widely accepted and seemingly race-neutral practice is actually racist, whether in its intent or its effects. These arguments are often made in terms of disparate impact. Gifted and talented education disproportionately benefits white and Asian students.
I appreciate the neutral and factual explanation of the term, as a reader from Europe, with English as third language. And I do not understand the downvotes, both to your explanation or to the equally neutral question.
The definition of "woke" is like the definition of "hipster". Whatever these words might originally have meant in some narrow context, they are now used as vague condescending insults for a broad range of people the person speaking doesn’t like.
Find 10 people opposed to “woke” and you’ll get 12 or 13 distinct explanations/criteria for the term.
If you substitute “poopyhead” for “woke” across the internet it won’t substantively change the meaning of anything you read.
That's not right. Woke is an adjective form of SJW (Social Justice Warrior) and almost exclusively used by people who disparage people interested in social justice in a sneering way. It is meant to be insulting but it does have meaning.
It’s not that these words have no meaning. The problem is that the meaning is vague and changes depending on the speaker and context, so that to the reader/listener it is generally impossible to tell quite what meaning is intended. The word says more about the identity politics of the user than it does about the target.
“Woke” is in practice a vague pejorative that people use to redirect a conversation from critical thinking to tribal thinking.
It is used to elide facts and specifics, like measurable and persistent racial disparities in social outcomes including education. Instead we are invited to consider whether a given person or policy is “woke”, which is not objectively measurable in any way.
If there are specific complaints about a policy, we can consider those directly. No need to apply a reductive label. The top comment was quite specific.
All policies represent agendas and have implications for groups within society, including policies implemented in the past that we live under today. To different perspectives, any given policy will have different upsides and downsides. Moving forward is about finding balance, consensus, or compromise among these perspectives.
Applying a simple label like “woke” is an invitation to ignore this complexity in favor of binary (“is this woke or not”) or linear (“how woke is this”) modes of thought. It’s also an invitation to prejudge the merit based on a sense of whether an idea comes from inside or outside the tribe.
It’s like trying to troubleshoot a space station by focusing on whether solutions seem “cool” or not.
The downvotes are because this person is unfairly presenting a single perspective on what the "woke" term means. If you aren't willing to present other perspectives and engage with them in good faith, then you're a propagandist.
It is much better to read a single factual and accurate explanation, than to read two biased perspectives from two shitheads on the opposite sides of political spectrum.
Example of 'Woke', non race, non class issue: Relative Age Effect.
If you are born in November you have almost no chance of becoming a star athlete, if you are born in January your chances are triple.
Noone designed the system to be unjust, but noone throught about ensuring it's fair either, and for decades noone questioned it.
That's what 'Woke' people claim to 'detect'. Sometines it's right, sometimes it's wrong.
Results matter as much as Intent does - communists had great intent, and where did it get them. Neoliberals have great intent and volumes of theory, all they have to show for it is a stangnant economy and rising inequality.
I am going to present a sane and rational counter-argument for completeness. I am personally undecided on some of these issues.
The counter argument would go something like this:
Structural racism and sexism are so deeply embedded in society that it's hopeless to try to eliminate these tendencies directly. Not only are these tendencies complex, systematic, and often unconscious, they are also difficult to impossible to measure. Outcome on the other hand is easy to measure.
If you start with the hypothesis that at least a large chunk of differences in outcome are a result of differences in opportunity (including hidden ones), then addressing outcome directly is the most effective way to try to combat bias. One way to do this is to eliminate societal systems and programs that seem to lead to outcomes (either positive or negative) that differ statistically from the baseline race and sex distribution in society.
The root of this debate seems to be biological determinism. The "right" (loosely defined) side of this debate argues that once overt racism and sexism are removed most of the remaining differences in ability and outcome that manifest are biologically innate. The "left" (again loosely defined) argues that this is at best unproven and point to the reported subjective experiences of women and minorities in which they report continuous low-grade racism and sexism that remains even after racism and sexism of the overt codified variety are removed.
> The root of this debate seems to be biological determinism. The "right" (loosely defined) side of this debate argues that once overt racism and sexism are removed most of the remaining differences in ability and outcome that manifest are biologically innate.
"Biological determinism" is a huge red herring here. There are lots of causally-relevant factors wrt. social outcomes that have nothing to do with either biology or perceived prejudice/discrimination (however defined). Biological differences might explain some of the different preferences across genders (the broad 'people vs. things' orientation that even seems to show up in experiments with infants), but they're realistically irrelevant to anything else that the "woke" actually care about.
What does it mean to give "equality of opportunity" to a black child in America, who's ancestors were enslaved, who's great grandparent was lynched, who's grandparents couldn't vote, who's parents couldn't go to university because of discrimination?
Who lives in a country where three white men can murder a black jogger, and it requires a international outcry for the police to prosecute?
As I understand "woke", it does mean trying to equalise "opportunity"; it just recognises that "opportunity" in the sense of "something offered" is not the same as "opportunity" in the sense of "the chance to do well", and tries to correct that.
In this particular case, does it make sense to take away gifted and talented programmes? There is clearly equality of opportunity offered. But a woke response might be to also identify individuals in disadvantaged groups who would be at that level were it not for their disadvantage and help them get there.
> What does it mean to give "equality of opportunity" to a black child in America, who's ancestors were enslaved, who's great grandparent was lynched, who's grandparents couldn't vote, who's parents couldn't go to university because of discrimination?
Much of this applies almost equally to Slav kids in America (when you account for what their origin countries were like) yet they seem to do pretty well compared to Blacks. So I think there's reason to be skeptical about your claim that "we've offered plenty enough to the Black community and it hasn't helped, so equality of opportunity itself must be the problem". We haven't done nearly enough for true equal opportunity to be achieved, and this goes equally for both mainstream society as a whole and the Black community itself which has often pushed in counterproductive directions.
As a term it is barely used except by people that overwhelmingly hate the culture (which as said, does not exist as an entity). Asserting what is true and what is not about the term in general doesn't work as a consequence and we should most closely try to approximate what the speaker in question means. I think you covered that well, but for a casual non-native reader it is important to have this expressed.
"Woke is an English adjective meaning 'alert to racial prejudice and discrimination' that originated in African-American Vernacular English (AAVE). Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as sexism, and has also been used as shorthand for left-wing ideas involving identity politics and social justice, such as the notion of white privilege and slavery reparations for African Americans.[0,1]"
Unfortunately like most terms associated with progressivism, feminism or race, almost no one here ever uses the term in good faith, understanding either its history or taking its purpose at face value, and it's simply become another anti-leftist pejorative.
To quote another post that's quickly disappeared from the front page here:
> the left’s insecurity about genetics is partly why so many have fallen completely for the critical theory cult, leaving reality far behind, and sustaining this new (and false) consensus at this point solely by punishment of dissent
Wokeness is about caring about people who look different from oneself, and who aren't in positions of power. The summary you quoted is wrong on every level.
Source: Am leftist who is secure about genetics, though would prefer less methylation of my particular genes.
With some quibbles: the gifted programs aren’t being phased out entirely, assessments are just being moved to a state where they’re less gamified. The reason why note white and Asian people were on them was because they could pay to cram the gifted assessments, which then poisoned the whole program because those kids weren’t actually gifted.
SAT similarly is a pretty bad indicator of intelligence because there’s a pipeline of gaming them.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/us/california-math-curric...
[2] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-05-20/californ...
[3] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-11-18/uc-slams...