Nest M+ or Private School?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no more OLSAT exam. Gifted & talented is now a lottery (no matter how much certain parents wish it wasn't).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yet another post loaded with stereotypes. You shouldn't have bothered.

Lots of the G&T parents posting here are justifying the stereotypes. YMMV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think it is mainly Anderson kids.

Or so you think. Not all kids at citywides go to Russian Math. Just stop it already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no more OLSAT exam. Gifted & talented is now a lottery (no matter how much certain parents wish it wasn't).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yet another post loaded with stereotypes. You shouldn't have bothered.

Lots of the G&T parents posting here are justifying the stereotypes. YMMV.

You are seeing what you want to see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think it is mainly Anderson kids.

Or so you think. Not all kids at citywides go to Russian Math. Just stop it already.

I don't think they said "All". You stop it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no more OLSAT exam. Gifted & talented is now a lottery (no matter how much certain parents wish it wasn't).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yet another post loaded with stereotypes. You shouldn't have bothered.

Lots of the G&T parents posting here are justifying the stereotypes. YMMV.

You are seeing what you want to see.

I'm a new poster who thinks this whole discussion has become stupid. Move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think it is mainly Anderson kids.

Or so you think. Not all kids at citywides go to Russian Math. Just stop it already.

I don't think they said "All". You stop it.

But what do these parents whose kids don't go to Anderson actually know about Anderson? My children didn't go to an independent school. I wouldn't comment in a forum about those schools and frankly I don't really care. Why do people whose kids are not in G&T programs comment with abandon about what they don't know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think it is mainly Anderson kids.

Or so you think. Not all kids at citywides go to Russian Math. Just stop it already.

I don't think they said "All". You stop it.

But what do these parents whose kids don't go to Anderson actually know about Anderson? My children didn't go to an independent school. I wouldn't comment in a forum about those schools and frankly I don't really care. Why do people whose kids are not in G&T programs comment with abandon about what they don't know?

1. Why do you care?
2. Some parents interact frequently with parents from these schools so they know what they are like without actually being parents at the school so can give an arms length perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think it is mainly Anderson kids.

Or so you think. Not all kids at citywides go to Russian Math. Just stop it already.

I don't think they said "All". You stop it.

But what do these parents whose kids don't go to Anderson actually know about Anderson? My children didn't go to an independent school. I wouldn't comment in a forum about those schools and frankly I don't really care. Why do people whose kids are not in G&T programs comment with abandon about what they don't know?

1. Why do you care?
2. Some parents interact frequently with parents from these schools so they know what they are like without actually being parents at the school so can give an arms length perspective.

1. I'm just stating the obvious.
2. No, they only see what they want to see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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)

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.

let’s not kid ourselves. The class size law is just designed so we don’t need to reduce the school budget. The population of students has declined yet the spending keeps going up. The DOE and the entire city budget is just for grifters and special interests.

If nyc ever looses its charm for the uber wealthy and middle class families it’s gonna suck. Who is going to pay for all the poor people and government employees ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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)

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.

let’s not kid ourselves. The class size law is just designed so we don’t need to reduce the school budget. The population of students has declined yet the spending keeps going up. The DOE and the entire city budget is just for grifters and special interests.

If nyc ever looses its charm for the uber wealthy and middle class families it’s gonna suck. Who is going to pay for all the poor people and government employees ?

The main effect of the class size law - and you see the pushback against it growing now, because the people who believe that any time the government does something nice for somebody who *isn't* underprivileged the system has failed have finally caught on - is to make crowded, wealthier NYC public schools competitive with suburban ones in terms of staffing ratios. Which will hopefully keep more families here. It's true that we already had small class sizes in less advantaged neighborhoods; if we also offer them in wealthier ones too, the argument for giving up your happy little life with your 1-2 kids in your 2-bedroom UWS condo to move to some 3500 square foot monstrosity in Westport or wherever gets substantially weaker.