Anonymous wrote:The program in this article is a blatant attempt to boost "diversity" numbers.

Or rephrased without the contempt, the program in this article is an attempt to correct for bias embedded in the screening mechanisms for their gifted program.

In addition, it seems like this program is attempting to correct not only for testing bias, but to address the fact that children from minority/low socioeconomic backgrounds often miss out on the support at home and outside of school that can cultivate gifted traits. Look at the characteristics that are on the list to identify students for the program - they line up with gifted behavior traits. I think the headline is pretty telling: "Can schools create gifted students" They aren't trying to make children gifted, but rather to foster the development of kids who are "gifted" but haven't had the same developmental support to develop into "testable" gifted students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course all students benefit from high expectations and high level instruction. Lots of research has shown that people are influenced by others' expectations of them. Here's just one article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106815408551985600

Segregating kids into two distinct tracks that will last through high school and beyond (since it's so much easier to get into TJ from a center) based on test scores when a child is in 2nd grade is really harmful.

And one solution is to get rid of TJ.

The demand for AAP Centers would drop precipitously.

An even better solution would be not to start the rigid groupings at age 7. Wait until quality school for all has leveled the playing field a bit and for kids who might just be late bloomers to declare themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course all students benefit from high expectations and high level instruction. Lots of research has shown that people are influenced by others' expectations of them. Here's just one article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106815408551985600

Segregating kids into two distinct tracks that will last through high school and beyond (since it's so much easier to get into TJ from a center) based on test scores when a child is in 2nd grade is really harmful.

And one solution is to get rid of TJ.

The demand for AAP Centers would drop precipitously.

BS. There are tons of kids in AAP not interested in STEM.

Anonymous wrote:The program in this article is a blatant attempt to boost "diversity" numbers.

it's an experiment on a small group. Nothing wrong with that. Let's see if it works.

The program in this article is a blatant attempt to boost "diversity" numbers.

Anonymous wrote:You don't "make" students gifted. My TJ kid was born "gifted." The whole idea of "making" gifted students is simply stupid.

Really? You don't think your parenting, and the opportunities you gave him as you recognized his "giftedness" contributed?

Anonymous wrote:You don't "make" students gifted. My TJ kid was born "gifted." The whole idea of "making" gifted students is simply stupid.

The program described in the article selects "borderline" students who were close to the cutoff and then puts them into special "quasi-gifted" classes, with the stated intent that they later test higher and make the cutoff, and with the unstated intent that the students are challenged and prepared for HS honors and AP classes. Because their gifted program seems to be tiny (one year had only 2 students), it seems like a good idea and an excellent program.

You don't "make" students gifted. My TJ kid was born "gifted." The whole idea of "making" gifted students is simply stupid.

Anonymous wrote:Of course all students benefit from high expectations and high level instruction. Lots of research has shown that people are influenced by others' expectations of them. Here's just one article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106815408551985600

Segregating kids into two distinct tracks that will last through high school and beyond (since it's so much easier to get into TJ from a center) based on test scores when a child is in 2nd grade is really harmful.

And one solution is to get rid of TJ.

The demand for AAP Centers would drop precipitously.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the article, and it's not exactly showing that kids benefit from advanced programming, it's more about creating a 1.5 gifted program, between GT and gen ed.

Sounds like a good idea, but some of the lines did make me wince. This one, for example: Ford described Louisiana’s IQ cutoff score as “one of the highest” in the country. “I think those criteria are untenable if you really want to desegregate your gifted programs.”

I just read the whole article too, and it did say that the intent was for these kids to be able to test high enough to be labeled gifted.

And 130 is not one of the highest in the country to qualify for gifted programs. And it's even lower for certain demographics -- between 1.5 and 2 standard deviations, which would be as low as 121. I wish these "diversity advocates" would realize they're in essence saying those groups of kids need easier admissions requirements.

But it's true if you believe that IQ scores are influenced by cultural constraints. A child who has been read to since birth, has always had high quality child care, comes from highly verbal parents, is going to have a higher IQ than a child with none of those advantages -- even if both children are actually capable of doing high level academics.

Anonymous wrote:I read the article, and it's not exactly showing that kids benefit from advanced programming, it's more about creating a 1.5 gifted program, between GT and gen ed.

Sounds like a good idea, but some of the lines did make me wince. This one, for example: Ford described Louisiana’s IQ cutoff score as “one of the highest” in the country. “I think those criteria are untenable if you really want to desegregate your gifted programs.”

I just read the whole article too, and it did say that the intent was for these kids to be able to test high enough to be labeled gifted.

And 130 is not one of the highest in the country to qualify for gifted programs. And it's even lower for certain demographics -- between 1.5 and 2 standard deviations, which would be as low as 121. I wish these "diversity advocates" would realize they're in essence saying those groups of kids need easier admissions requirements.

Of course all students benefit from high expectations and high level instruction. Lots of research has shown that people are influenced by others' expectations of them. Here's just one article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106815408551985600

Segregating kids into two distinct tracks that will last through high school and beyond (since it's so much easier to get into TJ from a center) based on test scores when a child is in 2nd grade is really harmful.

9 students in the class.
In this school, where black and Hispanic students make up nearly 65 percent of the student body, Meredith’s has a different demographic – about evenly split between white and non-white students.

all hand selected either because they passed the gifted test or the administration believes they have the potentiall to succeed in the class.

I read the article, and it's not exactly showing that kids benefit from advanced programming, it's more about creating a 1.5 gifted program, between GT and gen ed.

Sounds like a good idea, but some of the lines did make me wince. This one, for example: Ford described Louisiana’s IQ cutoff score as “one of the highest” in the country. “I think those criteria are untenable if you really want to desegregate your gifted programs.”

http://hechingerreport.org/can-schools-create-gifted-students/

Interesting approach. Shows that kids benefit from advanced programming, no matter whether they are "gifted" are not when they start.