Anonymous wrote:IQ is an outdated, culturally-biased concept that is used to maintain the status quo power structure in place and keep the rest in their places cooking and cleaning for the masters.

Evidently that means that 1.5 and 2nd generation Asians are the predominant status quo culture and power structure that is in place, because that's who does best.

Do you realize how much your premise DOES NOT make sense, given the realities in the results?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, what I mean is that IQ is based on a false presumption of what "intelligence" is and was originally developed around WWI as a way just to sort men into various roles in the military draft. It's not much different now and is riddled with cultural biases, based on the original developers' ideas of what intelligence meant in their own culture.

Exactly, just like all Asians aren't gifted in Asia, so what does that say about race classifications. PP is just thinking about in the US or in certain areas of the US ! If I remember my psychology class 101, there was evidence to also suggest that the creators of the first, or one of the first tests Alfred Binet, falsified the data.

Yes, but perhaps the Asians who make it here are smarter. Also, would not cultural biases put recently arrived Asians at a cultural disadvantage in IQ testing as compared to Americans of all races? Plus, there is not just Binet IQ testing. There are newer tests used which I guessing have accounted for cultural differences.

Anonymous wrote:No, what I mean is that IQ is based on a false presumption of what "intelligence" is and was originally developed around WWI as a way just to sort men into various roles in the military draft. It's not much different now and is riddled with cultural biases, based on the original developers' ideas of what intelligence meant in their own culture.

Exactly, just like all Asians aren't gifted in Asia, so what does that say about race classifications. PP is just thinking about in the US or in certain areas of the US ! If I remember my psychology class 101, there was evidence to also suggest that the creators of the first, or one of the first tests Alfred Binet, falsified the data.

This study is worrisome but hardly countrrproductive. If this study showed the same bias about special needs would your response be to get rid of the special needs designation?

No, what I mean is that IQ is based on a false presumption of what "intelligence" is and was originally developed around WWI as a way just to sort men into various roles in the military draft. It's not much different now and is riddled with cultural biases, based on the original developers' ideas of what intelligence meant in their own culture.

Anonymous wrote:IQ is a culturally biased relic of a bygone era. I doubt you'll hardly see it at all 20 years from now.

So are you saying that we all have equal intellectual capabilities?

I know that no matter how hard I study that I will never be an Einstein. I will also never be as smart as some of the kids I went to school with too. This does not make me a lesser person. It just means we all have different abilities and talents and schools should meet these needs by tracking or flexible tracking in separate classrooms since differentiation is truly inefficient and and inadequate.

Anonymous wrote:So how does explain the performance and being identified as "gifted" for Asians? I'm Asian and NEVER had an Asian teacher/prof until college.

I was thinking the same thing. However, most of the times the "gifted" label is given to Asians only because of their top performance in various IQ tests administered by the school. In the end, it becomes difficult to explain why an Asian student is not "gifted" if lesser performing students of different races are designated "gifted".

I think if there was a class of only Asian students taught by non-Asians, it would be easy to dismiss most of them as "prepped" instead of "gifted". However, in a diverse classroom, the administration probably have to label the Asian kids as "gifted" just so others can be labelled as "gifted" too.

I also think that having Asian teachers would actually prevent Asian students from being labeled "gifted" because it would look like the teacher was biased for the Asian students. Not having Asian teachers actually works in favor of Asian students. They are then evaluated entirely on their performance rather than race. And performance is something these students can control instead of race.

"The answer to this disparity isn't to stop identifying kids who have special learning needs due to giftedness"

+million. OP, the conclusion you take from this article is completely inapt. The reason gifted testing, identification, and programming exists is to serve the needs of a certain group of students. This article says that the identification portion needs to be done better, which is old news for those involved in gifted education. Many - gifted kids with learning disabilities, gifted kids who are gifted in non-traditional ways (think music or art ability) - fall through the cracks, not because of their race. So the conclusion should be to work on doing a better job identifying kids for these programs, not denying these programs to those who need it.

And wrt to the suggestions that gifted programming precludes other students from AP/advanced tracked programs, that should not be the intent or result of a well-designed gifted program. Again, different sets of kids have different needs.

NP here.

There are very few students who are truly gifted enough to make the case they have special learning needs. The vast majority of students in gifted programs do not meet the definition of gifted. They are merely very bright and/or motivated. This is not to say that these students don't have learning needs, merely that their learning needs are not "special" and can be adequately served in a truly differentiated classroom. So called gifted programs skim these children off and do not meet the needs of students with true special learning needs (including students who are often referred to as 2e, students with learning disabilities, and other students who can benefit from instruction that meets their individual learning needs).

The push to expand "gifted" programs is just a push for glorified permanent tracking, with no flexibility or ability to meet the needs of students with special learning needs. Better to spend money on creating true differentiated learning environments, with more special needs educators (including ones who know how to create curriculum for the brighter kids, the 2e kids, the kids with learning difficulties, etc) This environment should have flexible ability grouping, with pull out for enrichment or remediation in a variety of subjects, so the kids advanced in reading, but say middle of the road in math, can be challenged in their strength areas within the regular environment, rather then being isolated in a special program that is no more tailored to their specific needs than the regular classroom.

When 30-40% of students qualify for gifted programs and many more appeal themselves into such programs, the programs themselves are a joke and a poor allocation of resources.

Why not fight to change the whole learning environment to better serve all individual needs?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so I read the article and can only conclude that we are all racist. Hispanic teachers identify more gifted Hispanics, but not gifted Black students. Black teachers identify more gifted Black students, but not more Hispanics. When more Black or Hispanic students are identified, there are less White students identified.

Not what the study said. At no point did it suggest that black teachers identify fewer gifted white students.

Straight from the study:

"The results from the model with the percentage of gifted students who are white as the dependent variable are shown in column 3 of Table 2. Schools with larger proportions of minority teachers are associated with less white representation in gifted programs (
p
< 0.01). A 10% increase in the proportion of either Hispanic or black teachers is related to approximately 4% or 3% drop in the percent of gifted students who are white, respectively."

If minority teachers are identifying more AA and Hispanic kids as gifted, then the proportion of whites will fall. That's basic arithmetic. It doesn't mean that fewer white kids overall are being identified.

Quite right, when I initially read that I assumed that they were saying the the percentage of white students identified had decreased (e.g. 8% of White students were identified with predominantly White teachers, and 6% of White students identified with a significant amount of Hispanic teachers), not just that their proportion had decreased. It would be helpful if they had provided percentages identified by race stratified by amount of Black or Hispanic teachers/principals. As it is, I wonder why they even mention the proportion changing, because that is obvious and inconsequential.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so I read the article and can only conclude that we are all racist. Hispanic teachers identify more gifted Hispanics, but not gifted Black students. Black teachers identify more gifted Black students, but not more Hispanics. When more Black or Hispanic students are identified, there are less White students identified.

Not what the study said. At no point did it suggest that black teachers identify fewer gifted white students.

Straight from the study:

"The results from the model with the percentage of gifted students who are white as the dependent variable are shown in column 3 of Table 2. Schools with larger proportions of minority teachers are associated with less white representation in gifted programs (
p
< 0.01). A 10% increase in the proportion of either Hispanic or black teachers is related to approximately 4% or 3% drop in the percent of gifted students who are white, respectively."

If minority teachers are identifying more AA and Hispanic kids as gifted, then the proportion of whites will fall. That's basic arithmetic. It doesn't mean that fewer white kids overall are being identified.

IQ is a culturally biased relic of a bygone era. I doubt you'll hardly see it at all 20 years from now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think that most schools are using IQ tests to decide who gets to take AP classes. In my district, AP is said to be for the top 25% of students, while GT serves around 10%. They also use standardized test results (achievement tests) to help decide which class a student should take, not "ability" or gifted testing.

The argument against ability grouping is that it's hard to move up once a student is placed in a "low" track, and minority or poor students are over represented in the low tracks.

They shouldn't be using IQ tests at all. Performance -- whether through subject-based testing or GPA -- should be the sole measure used if the goal of a public education system is to simpl to educate. In contrast, the "pro-gifted" people seem to be arguing that some students need something more out of public school than a track that meets their area of competency. Perhaps one of them could explain why.

Most aren't using IQ tests to identify kids as GT, they are using ability tests (Cogat, NNAT, OLSAT etc.) which are highly correlated with IQ. Achievement testing also correlates highly with IQ, though not quite as much. Schools do a good job providing "tracks"(essentially AP or Pre Ap vs. general ed, or remedial/special ed) in middle and high school. And in most cases there isn't a lot "extra" provided to GT students at that age. I have a GT student and am fine with that. AP classes and academic clubs are probably enough for that age, and if it isn't, early college entry is always an option.

I think elementary school is where more GT parents see that there kid's educational needs aren't always being met. There is a reluctance to track students at that age so the pace of the class can be slow, and differentiation seems to be more of a buzzword than an actual thing that happens in school.

So, what you're saying is, we don't need "IQ" or "ability" tests in order to track students appropriately. The goal is appropriate tracking, not "gifted" identification or labeling. Thanks for agreeing with the theme of the thread.

I think that pull out GT programs are nice with projects/creative thinking exercises are nice, but it is far more important to have appropriate instruction in math/language arts. They seem to really stress creativity in my kid's program, which is funny because the tests they use to identify kids are not testing creativity. Gifted kids are often very creative, but not all of them. My child was selected based on his math ability, but the program has nothing to do with math. That is where he needs to be challenged, but all of the kids do the same math work, regardless of ability.

One purpose of IQ/ability testing is to pick up kids who are smart but underachievers and try to help them reach their potential. These kids have a lot of potential, but are not doing as well for whatever reason. A lot of time these kids are ADHD, dyslexic, or come from a home environment that is not particularly engaged in academics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think that most schools are using IQ tests to decide who gets to take AP classes. In my district, AP is said to be for the top 25% of students, while GT serves around 10%. They also use standardized test results (achievement tests) to help decide which class a student should take, not "ability" or gifted testing.

The argument against ability grouping is that it's hard to move up once a student is placed in a "low" track, and minority or poor students are over represented in the low tracks.

They shouldn't be using IQ tests at all. Performance -- whether through subject-based testing or GPA -- should be the sole measure used if the goal of a public education system is to simpl to educate. In contrast, the "pro-gifted" people seem to be arguing that some students need something more out of public school than a track that meets their area of competency. Perhaps one of them could explain why.

Most aren't using IQ tests to identify kids as GT, they are using ability tests (Cogat, NNAT, OLSAT etc.) which are highly correlated with IQ. Achievement testing also correlates highly with IQ, though not quite as much. Schools do a good job providing "tracks"(essentially AP or Pre Ap vs. general ed, or remedial/special ed) in middle and high school. And in most cases there isn't a lot "extra" provided to GT students at that age. I have a GT student and am fine with that. AP classes and academic clubs are probably enough for that age, and if it isn't, early college entry is always an option.

I think elementary school is where more GT parents see that there kid's educational needs aren't always being met. There is a reluctance to track students at that age so the pace of the class can be slow, and differentiation seems to be more of a buzzword than an actual thing that happens in school.

So, what you're saying is, we don't need "IQ" or "ability" tests in order to track students appropriately. The goal is appropriate tracking, not "gifted" identification or labeling. Thanks for agreeing with the theme of the thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think that most schools are using IQ tests to decide who gets to take AP classes. In my district, AP is said to be for the top 25% of students, while GT serves around 10%. They also use standardized test results (achievement tests) to help decide which class a student should take, not "ability" or gifted testing.

The argument against ability grouping is that it's hard to move up once a student is placed in a "low" track, and minority or poor students are over represented in the low tracks.

They shouldn't be using IQ tests at all. Performance -- whether through subject-based testing or GPA -- should be the sole measure used if the goal of a public education system is to simpl to educate. In contrast, the "pro-gifted" people seem to be arguing that some students need something more out of public school than a track that meets their area of competency. Perhaps one of them could explain why.

Most aren't using IQ tests to identify kids as GT, they are using ability tests (Cogat, NNAT, OLSAT etc.) which are highly correlated with IQ. Achievement testing also correlates highly with IQ, though not quite as much. Schools do a good job providing "tracks"(essentially AP or Pre Ap vs. general ed, or remedial/special ed) in middle and high school. And in most cases there isn't a lot "extra" provided to GT students at that age. I have a GT student and am fine with that. AP classes and academic clubs are probably enough for that age, and if it isn't, early college entry is always an option.

I think elementary school is where more GT parents see that there kid's educational needs aren't always being met. There is a reluctance to track students at that age so the pace of the class can be slow, and differentiation seems to be more of a buzzword than an actual thing that happens in school.

IQ is an outdated, culturally-biased concept that is used to maintain the status quo power structure in place and keep the rest in their places cooking and cleaning for the masters.