Nest M+ or Private School?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
It shouldn't be a lottery. Everyone thinks their child is gifted but not every child is capable of doing work a grade, or more, level above their actual grade. Testing is the only way to assess. |
Anonymous
Gifted testing for kindergarten is useless. These programs should be eliminated. Wait until kids are older to start differentiating. Use resources for more important things. And if you are having gifted programs, only have them for kids whose zoned schools are truly bad - PS6 or 199 kids don't need to go to G&T. |
Anonymous
|
we had this choice and chose private. WORST CALL
Nest all the way |
Anonymous
It isn't useless. I was a G&T parent and know the children and what happens in the classroom. Some children need differentiation starting in K. A kindergartner reading at a 4th grade level shouldn't have to sit around not learning for years. G&T programs hardly use any resources. Who are you to say the PS6 or 199 kids don't need G&T? Every family should choose the program that is right for their child and their family. I've known smart kids who were bored at 199. |
Anonymous
May I ask what kind of private? No need to name it, borough and TT v 2T progressive v traditional would be helpful. |
Anonymous
We turned down a top G&T for our top neighborhood Gen Ed. Tons of smart kids in class with our child, as well as plenty who weren't. My child ended up getting top scores on the ISEE and SHSAT and is racing through HS, on track for Ivies. And there are a number of other kids from their Gen Ed K class who are on a similar trajectory. They were not "bored." They did not need Russian Math. They were able to play sports or do art or dance and go to the park with friends and be kids. And they are now generally all very well adjusted, kind, smart, funny teenagers. People need to get over themselves and chill. Save the G&T seats for kids who don't have a decent alternative. NYC public schools have limited resources. Don't hog them all with your snowflake. |
Anonymous
|
The basic problem with G&T is that you’re reducing a spectrum of different levels of aptitude across different subjects (that can even change from year to year) with a single, binary, immutable “gifted” status. And inevitably either you set the threshold too high and leave out most of the kids who’d benefit from differentiated education or you set it too low and have everybody complaining that it’s meaningless.
Differentiated instruction within a classroom seems like a much better approach, particularly for a big messy school system like NYC; put the strong math kids at a math table with other strong math kids, put the strong readers with strong readers, assign extra enrichment for kids who need it, offer extracurriculars like math team and debate and writing contests… everyone gets what they need and nobody is reduced to a single “gifted” flag or not. (This sort of approach is much easier to pull off with a smaller classroom, which is why full implementation of the class size law is so important) |
Anonymous
Yes. And contrary to popular opinion, particularly from those who think their 4 year olds are geniuses, the differentiation between kids in K or 1 is really not that huge. Yes, some kids are further along in reading than others, but in the grand scheme of things, it really isn't that much. And often the kids who are most advanced academically are the ones who need help with the social skills that are fundamental parts of those grades (particularly self-awareness). As kids progress through elementary school, the variation grows and grows, so particularly by middle school, the gaps are much bigger. Yet even then, there are lots of great Gen Ed middle schools in the city that do not "slow down" or "hold back" very smart kids. There are lots of kids who get into Stuy or wherever else and thrive coming from a Gen Ed classroom where most of the other kids are nowhere near that level. |
Anonymous
Agreed that the flag of "gifted" is suboptimal and leads to unnecessary resentment. What I disagree on is differentiated instruction within the classrooms in a huge system like NYC. Teachers focus on those who are behind. This is the reality. Smart kids are left to their own devices because of course they'll be "fine". Too often they are used as in-class tutors for other children. With regard to the class size law, NYC already has small class sizes, mostly in undersubscribed schools in less advantaged neighborhoods. Class sizes are larger in schools in the best districts with the most desirable schools. It's a fool's errand. |
Anonymous
I think schools are actually worst for kids who are "good but not great." I have two kids. One is gifted. Good teachers managed to keep them challenged and interested in Gen Ed classes. They were highly motivated and it occasionally were a bit frustrated by others who couldn't keep up but overall it was fine. Partially because there were often a few other kids like them in the class. Note that we never felt the need to supplement, Russian Math, tutor, whatever else. Once they got to an advanced HS they still excelled, even amongst kids who went to G&T, Speyer, etc. My other child is very bright but not as bright nor as motivated. They did "fine." But were capable of doing more. But because they weren't struggling (to your point) but also weren't a brilliant superstar who the teachers could dote on, the teachers decided that "fine" was good enough - my kid was capable of a 93 but got an 87 and weren't pushed to get to 93 (my other kid got 99 or 100). The squeaky wheel gets the grease. |
Anonymous
Says the person who has to brag that their child "is racing through HS, on track for Ivies", stereotypes kids in G&T programs, incorrectly states that G&T takes resources, thinks they alone should decide who G&T programs are for, and disrespects someone else's life experience by calling their child a snowflake. Take your own advice. Opposition to G&T programs is all about the insecurities of the adults doing the opposing and not at all about what the kids actually need. |
Anonymous
NP: No, it is about not wanting to be around parents whose self-worth is determined by their child succeeding on a random test when they are 4-5 years old. Or worse yet, the system is even now more arbitrary. That poster was trying to give some context for their comments. But you are so insecure that you had to try to take them down a notch. You go with your bad self. |
Anonymous
| Why does everyone think that all kids in G&T do Russian Math? They don't. Mine didn't. They played after school in the yard for hours. They played sports and did other extracurriculars after school and on the weekends. They were kids like anyone else. "And now they are generally very well adjusted, kind, smart, funny teenagers." The stereotyping of G&T kids and families by non-G&T parents is weird. |
Anonymous
Yet another post loaded with stereotypes. You shouldn't have bothered. |
Anonymous
I think it is mainly Anderson kids. |