Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is just a direct attack on academically successful Asian kids. However, won't hurt people with money who can send their kids to private.
This. It impacts families with immigrant parents who didn't have the opportunity for education in their home country. It hurts kids who have families that put an emphasis on education and came to the US to seek that out. Families with money have choices. These families don't. It's upsetting.
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.
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.
You are skipping a story in between because your grandparents with a first grade education didn’t tutor their own kids. Who helped them along the way?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is just a direct attack on academically successful Asian kids. However, won't hurt people with money who can send their kids to private.
This. It impacts families with immigrant parents who didn't have the opportunity for education in their home country. It hurts kids who have families that put an emphasis on education and came to the US to seek that out. Families with money have choices. These families don't. It's upsetting.
You might be interested to know that the program under discussion relies on a test administered at 4 years old, and disproportionately attracks UMC white families. This is not the competitive test-in high schools - it's an elementary school program.
DP. Why are they scrapping the program instead of fixing (changing) it?
Anonymous wrote:I grew up in New York and benefited from some of these programs as a white child of a very poor immigrant family. I was a minority at the school I attended back in the day.
Anecdotally, my friends who have the means to do so are leaving NYC. We all want the best education for our kids, and NYC is just not it any more. As someone up thread said - it's the non-wealthy motivated parents who lose, because they can't afford private school and will now lack access to G&T. Yay NYC.
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.
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.
You are skipping a story in between because your grandparents with a first grade education didn’t tutor their own kids. Who helped them along the way?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is just a direct attack on academically successful Asian kids. However, won't hurt people with money who can send their kids to private.
This. It impacts families with immigrant parents who didn't have the opportunity for education in their home country. It hurts kids who have families that put an emphasis on education and came to the US to seek that out. Families with money have choices. These families don't. It's upsetting.
Anonymous wrote:The war on things Asians like escalates.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:New Yorker here. There are pieces to that. 1) whether the kids who have better academic abilities deserve to be educated according to their abilities, and 2) whether the existing system selects the right kids for that education. My answers are yes to the first and not so sure to the second. The test they used fir 4 years old appears to be quite teachable (I personally know several people who put their kids in year-long prep program) while not particularly discriminate at the high end - too many kids are scoring at super high percentiles. So, that had to be reformed.
Unfortunately, knowing the political landscape in NYC, I am pretty sure they threw out the baby with the bath water.
Does selection need to be that rigid? Can’t there be fluid streaming in the same school where every year or semester kids can test into the top class? Isn’t that why we have community colleges and top colleges across the country take in transfers, because some people are late bloomers ?
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.
Anonymous wrote:New Yorker here. There are pieces to that. 1) whether the kids who have better academic abilities deserve to be educated according to their abilities, and 2) whether the existing system selects the right kids for that education. My answers are yes to the first and not so sure to the second. The test they used fir 4 years old appears to be quite teachable (I personally know several people who put their kids in year-long prep program) while not particularly discriminate at the high end - too many kids are scoring at super high percentiles. So, that had to be reformed.
Unfortunately, knowing the political landscape in NYC, I am pretty sure they threw out the baby with the bath water.