NYC eliminating gifted and talented program

[Anonymous]

There’s some nuance here. DiBlasio is a straight-up communist, no doubt, and watering down the standards for the test-in high schools to achieve racial balance is the worst sort of leveling-down equity. That’s destructive and coming to a school district near you.

But the NYC G&T stuff for elementary is beyond absurd. The tests are eminently prepable at that age, and the standards are insufficient to identify actually gifted children. It merely created a parallel school system that allowed UMC parents to remain in public in the City, and resulted in a dog-eat-dog knife fight where if your kid didn’t make the cut, you were either out 50k a year for private or became a part of the bridge-and-tunnel crowd. The discussions on youbemom.com circa 2008 were fascinating, and IMO illustrated the pathology of that system.

In my (admittedly unsavory) opinion, all the G&T program in NYC did was allow the rich to maintain left-wing luxury beliefs while being insulated from the consequences, which were left for other people’s kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: What are the educational prospects of a low IQ child from a middle class family then? Let’s ask that question.

In the movie Forest Gump, young forest was about to be assigned to a special school because of low IQ, his mother wanted him to get a normal education so banged the principle so he would change his mind. Of course that’s a movie, but there is some truth to how the privilege can get rules bent in their favour.

If you find yourself relying on fictional evidence to make a point about policy in the real world, you should reconsider. Forest Gump in particular is a delusional baby boomer fantasy.

[Anonymous]

Do you want a real life example? Operation Varsity blues !

Entitled parents bribing people to take the SATs for their dumb kids or to lie that they play a sport to get recruitment spots at top colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: What are the educational prospects of a low IQ child from a middle class family then? Let’s ask that question.

In the movie Forest Gump, young forest was about to be assigned to a special school because of low IQ, his mother wanted him to get a normal education so banged the principle so he would change his mind. Of course that’s a movie, but there is some truth to how the privilege can get rules bent in their favour.

There is no such thing as low IQ child from a middle class family. These days little Forest would be found to have learning disabilities, get unlimited time for tests, etc. The rates of IEPs are actually correlated with household incomes, in some wealthy school districts up to a quarter of students have various accomodations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The qualities of gifted and talented are by definition are present at birth and are equally distributed across race and socio-economic factors.

If your program actually selects for environments factors that favour middle class and predominantly white kids then you don’t fit the title and deserve to be abolished.

When these programs select low income Black, Hispanic and any kid with EFL at the proportion that they are present in the community then I will take them seriously.

This is a nice sentiment, but it's belied by the evidence. It's common wisdom in the social sciences that IQ or "g" (general intelligence) is highly correlated with maternal education level.

G&T is supposed to be for exceptional kids though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The qualities of gifted and talented are by definition are present at birth and are equally distributed across race and socio-economic factors.

If your program actually selects for environments factors that favour middle class and predominantly white kids then you don’t fit the title and deserve to be abolished.

When these programs select low income Black, Hispanic and any kid with EFL at the proportion that they are present in the community then I will take them seriously.

This is absolutely not backed up by research.

The research flawlessly measures things that are highly influenced by environmental factors.

Take a Spanish speaking 4 year old and test them on English vocabulary that they may have had zero exposure to then of course they will score low. Even if you test a low income black kid for vocabulary, if their parents have limited vocabulary themselves then the kid won’t score well either.

Neither kids score truly represents their actual cognitive ability.

FYI, the kids in NYC could be tested in several languages; Spanish was definitely on the menu.

However, many bilingual kids are a bit delayed with language at that age regardless of income. This is the time when they start getting comfortable with English, due to the exposure in pre-K (universal and free in NYC), and their native language may slip a bit while they are not up to speed on English yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There’s some nuance here. DiBlasio is a straight-up communist, no doubt, and watering down the standards for the test-in high schools to achieve racial balance is the worst sort of leveling-down equity. That’s destructive and coming to a school district near you.

But the NYC G&T stuff for elementary is beyond absurd. The tests are eminently prepable at that age, and the standards are insufficient to identify actually gifted children. It merely created a parallel school system that allowed UMC parents to remain in public in the City, and resulted in a dog-eat-dog knife fight where if your kid didn’t make the cut, you were either out 50k a year for private or became a part of the bridge-and-tunnel crowd. The discussions on youbemom.com circa 2008 were fascinating, and IMO illustrated the pathology of that system.

In my (admittedly unsavory) opinion, all the G&T program in NYC did was allow the rich to maintain left-wing luxury beliefs while being insulated from the consequences, which were left for other people’s kids.

+1. Based on the last paragraph, I want to be your friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The qualities of gifted and talented are by definition are present at birth and are equally distributed across race and socio-economic factors.

If your program actually selects for environments factors that favour middle class and predominantly white kids then you don’t fit the title and deserve to be abolished.

When these programs select low income Black, Hispanic and any kid with EFL at the proportion that they are present in the community then I will take them seriously.

This is absolutely not backed up by research.

You’re missing the point and will never convince those you are arguing with. To them, the equal distribution of talent is not an empirical question that may be proven true or false with data or study. It is a moral proposition that is not subject to debate, and they will run you out of society if you even try to debate it.

[Anonymous]

Go to any major city hospital and look around at the degree educated staff and tell many of them that being born in poverty in a developing country means that they are of low intelligence and see what they say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Go to any major city hospital and look around at the degree educated staff and tell many of them that being born in poverty in a developing country means that they are of low intelligence and see what they say.

Except absolutely no one in this thread has made that argument.

[Anonymous]

Saying that Hispanic and Black kids being underrepresented the the ( thankfully former) gifted and talented program in New York is due to them being inherently low intelligent is making that argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Go to any major city hospital and look around at the degree educated staff and tell many of them that being born in poverty in a developing country means that they are of low intelligence and see what they say.

Most likely those kids were nurtured from a young age and raised with the idea that education is their ticket out of poverty. That’s how it was for my own parents. Not so for many non-immigrant urban kids in the US. Priorities are different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The qualities of gifted and talented are by definition are present at birth and are equally distributed across race and socio-economic factors.

If your program actually selects for environments factors that favour middle class and predominantly white kids then you don’t fit the title and deserve to be abolished.

When these programs select low income Black, Hispanic and any kid with EFL at the proportion that they are present in the community then I will take them seriously.

I know you really want to believe this but it isn't true. REEEEEEEEE out all you want but the the data shows otherwise.

I said equal at birth not in early childhood when, yes there is disparity. The answer is greater post natal care for the parents to encourage them the sing the alphabet song, teach lullabies and nursery rhymes etc , the things that middle class parents do that creates that gap. Invest in the social safety net so these families have the means they need to provide a stable and nurturing environment.

An intervention as massive as adoption doesn't change adult IQ values much, so it's hard to see how penny ante encouragement for parents singing the alphabet song is going to do it.

That’s not true, it’s the opposite. Adoption increase IQ compared to non adopted siblings.

https://www.webmd.com/children/news/20150323/adopted-kids-average-iq-higher-than-non-adopted-siblings-study

4 points; just like the PP said "doesn't change adult IQ values much"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Saying that Hispanic and Black kids being underrepresented the the ( thankfully former) gifted and talented program in New York is due to them being inherently low intelligent is making that argument.

It’s not. Because a lot happens after birth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The qualities of gifted and talented are by definition are present at birth and are equally distributed across race and socio-economic factors.

If your program actually selects for environments factors that favour middle class and predominantly white kids then you don’t fit the title and deserve to be abolished.

When these programs select low income Black, Hispanic and any kid with EFL at the proportion that they are present in the community then I will take them seriously.

This is absolutely not backed up by research.

The research flawlessly measures things that are highly influenced by environmental factors.

Take a Spanish speaking 4 year old and test them on English vocabulary that they may have had zero exposure to then of course they will score low. Even if you test a low income black kid for vocabulary, if their parents have limited vocabulary themselves then the kid won’t score well either.

Neither kids score truly represents their actual cognitive ability.

Except research on IQ is done worldwide. Nice try, though.