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.

?? What about Asian kids. See Fairfax AAP

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 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.

All four of my grandparents where only educated to 6 years old in Sri Lanka and now all 6 of their kids have post graduate degrees. So that’s bull. Give our least privileged citizens the resources and community driven high expectations that my parents got and the sky is the limit. It’s not expensive, they literally only needed textbooks pencils and paper. My dad still has his and used to tutor me from it.

That's an interesting anecdote, but it doesn't address the fact that numerous studies have found that intelligence is highly hereditable.

I don’t think they should eliminate g&t - they should ensure it is demographically balanced.

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.

All four of my grandparents where only educated to 6 years old in Sri Lanka and now all 6 of their kids have post graduate degrees. So that’s bull. Give our least privileged citizens the resources and community driven high expectations that my parents got and the sky is the limit. It’s not expensive, they literally only needed textbooks pencils and paper. My dad still has his and used to tutor me from it.

I'm in NYC and the idea of testing 4 yos for G&T seemed to very questionable. Really, for people who live in good school districts, there's no need to go G&T which mainly just takes care of elementary anyway (except for Anderson and NEST). But for people who do not have good zoned schools, the G&T route provided an option to get kids into "better" schools. NYC DOE is promising that it's going to improve all schools but a lot of people don't have faith in that promise. So there will probably be more anxiety among NYC parents now....

I am really shocked they have gifted & talented programs for Kindergarteners! It does seem terrible to track kids at such an early age. I can understand parents fear over this program ending since that’s what they’re used to and the Gen Ed programs probably suck…..BUT. It’s morally questionable.

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.

That's quite a claim. Any evidence?

NP. Even if they are uniformly distributed, nurture from ages 0-5 has a lot to do with developing those capabilities. Little Johnny may have the potential to be the next Einstein, but if he spends all day in front of the TV with grandma, and his mental energy is occupied on his unstable living situation, then it’s not going to happen.

I don’t understand why these districts are focused on taking away from opportunities from people who want them, rather than giving more opportunities and boosts to people coming from underprivileged backgrounds

Thanks Democrats

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.

Fairfax County will go that way soon. They are doing everything they can to dismantle their AAP program.

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.

That's quite a claim. Any evidence?

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.

Program selects for ...kids who study and do well in academics. No one is stopping Hispanic and Black and White kids from putting that effort.

Many of the Asian kids from poor families are getting into NYC GT programs. The parents work in menial jobs and usually cannot speak English!

But, even these Asian kids are working their butts off and doing well. How could the rich, powerful and racists accept that!!

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.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/08/nyregion/gifted-talented-nyc-schools.html

Will other districts follow suit?