Gifted Issues Discussion homepage

Okay, I've only gotten to this part of your post, and it's eminently quotable, so much so that I'm tempted to quote it twice.

Digging back in!

I just read through the 20-page summary of Harvard-Westlake's EDI program, and one thing is conspicuously absent: ACTUAL PARTNERSHIP AND COMMUNITY WORK with disadvantaged groups locally.

One would think that a real take on EDI and an honest reflection on privilege would involve actually meeting, learning about first-hand, and supporting real people, not just embarking on a thought exercise about diversity and taking an insular approach to supporting one's internal students and faculty. Now, I grant that the school has a generous financial aid program, and many of these items are (at first blush) intriguing. And I also grant that I'm an outsider and may not have the skinny on their full complement of activities.

However, thought without meaningful action is mental masturbation.

See for yourselves - https://www.hw.com/pdf/Anti-RacismatHarvard-Westlake.pdf

To be scrupulously fair, the last page of the document does list a handful of initiatives that appear to be intended to partner with underresourced populations (read, students of color), mainly in the form of tutoring or summer programs with intermediate or middle school students from specific schools (mostly charter schools), but they're all "helping" relationships, with a very clearly one-sided power dynamic, rather than equal partnerships where those with power spend more time listening respectfully and thoughtfully than they do speaking.

Our elite private schools here do mostly make genuine efforts to encourage children to be aware of their privilege and "give back". But this is, exactly as you say, most often in the form of "helping": reading tutoring for disadvantaged kids, soup kitchens, volunteer tourism, etc. Some schools I have looked at recently do seem to have some much more genuine partnership programs happening.

It's a fair point. Thanks for calling that out, aeh, you're probably right. I missed that last page in my zeal and am doing a re-read now!

When I read "knowledge development partnerships", I hear "knowledge download sessions", and I am quite skeptical about the value to these partners of tutoring. I may be mistaken. However, it feels like little imperialists going forth and awakening the ignorant... And the conference with peer schools: is that similarly affluent ones?

I may be particularly jaded tonight in my interpretations, but one of the key pieces of effective inter-cultural dialogue is striving for self-determination of the disadvantaged group, and reciprocity. As you say, leveling the power dynamic. They may be wonderfully sensitive and have good solutions in place, and I may be being unfairly demanding here.

I'll admit, I'm struggling to get over the ratio and sequencing in which this appears. In 20 pages, the last page is the only one which substantially touches people outside the school. It may be that those partnerships aren’t fully landed yet, so they’re being circumspect. Even if those few activities are totally altruistic and meaningful, the ratio still says a lot.

I am clearly an ornery grump tonight in want of a rant! If those initiatives are meaningful, power to them.

I think Mumofthree has hit upon one of the connectors to the original post. The rewriting of history classes. This is the age of movies like Hidden Figures. And talking about how white males went around and slaughtered native people and took what they could so Selville could have churches full of silver altars, etc etc. And TV shows, like Brooklyn 99, which has a black Lt in the squad, get stopped and frisked by 2 white patrol officers. The white male is coming off as the bad guy in global exploration and colonization. Though Isabella and Elizabeth 1 were OK with it too. And even the details of how Lincoln decided to take away slavery. It was an economic strike, not about equality. He was losing the war and making slaves free hit the south economically. But that really changes how we look at things. Political expediency is bigger than ever. So teaching these things is risky for those in power.

I know I am coming into this thread fairly late (and nice to see an active thread). But I am wondering if a better way to think of the Harvard-Westlake situation is as both an implicit contract and an explicit contract.

The explicit contract at elite private schools is that they provide a rigorous education in a highly supportive environment. Kids can excel in both their academics and their activities, and their classmates are for the most part also intelligent and ambitious. Most graduates of elite private schools seem to love their school.

The implicit contract is that they provide a leg up on elite college admissions, and that school curriculum will be essentially the same as when they signed up for them. The parents grew up with an education that emphasized western civilization, and they want that for their kids as well.

Personally, I think that the "leg up on elite college admissions" part is highly overrated. It's true that a large percentage of students from a place like Harvard-Westlake go onto one of the 12 Ivy Plus colleges (Ivy League plus Duke, MIT, Stanford and UChicago). But a major reason why is that a large percentage of the students benefits from one of the preference categories at these schools (legacy, major donor, athlete in sports they like such as fencing, etc.).

After you take out these preferences, I doubt the admit rate is much better than at the elite public schools around the country. Some of these are exam schools such as Stuyvesant in New York or Boston Latin. There are also open-admission schools with fantastic reputations such as Lexington High School in Massachusetts or Palo Alto High School. My kids attended a similar public school. But these schools tend to have highly competitive environments with lots of tiger parenting. Kids endure them, not enjoy them.

Therefore I suspect that much of the aggravation comes from realizing that little Johnny or Jane is not guaranteed to get into Stanford just due to attending Harvard-Westlake, and in fact they could have just gone to Palo Alto High School or the LA equivalent instead. So at that point, they were just paying expensive tuition for a supportive environment.

Now, that supportive environment no longer exists in their mind. Rather than be told that little Johnny or Jane are entitled to become masters of the universe, they are instead told that they could be responsible for correcting past wrongs that neither they nor their parents likely had anything to do with.

If I were paying expensive tuition for that, I too would be upset.

Such a clever way to frame it.


I suspect you’re right.

A lot of water ran under the bridge in this thread between the asking and the answering of this question! But I did want to offer some response, even if not comprehensive. The examples I describe will naturally be slanted toward differentiating downward, given the nature of inclusion at this point, but many of the approaches could be extended in either direction. Also, I apologize in advance for the length of this slight diversion from the nominal topic of the thread. (I haven't quite mastered "cursory." )

Teacher-specific traits

1. Content expertise: Of multiple kinds. Most of these teams have had a formal content specialist (English, math, etc.) and an instructional specialist (usually in special education). The content specialists who were best able to reach both extremes were usually those with the deepest grasp of their content. One of the best math teachers I know has a proven track record with both students with severe impairments in math, and with students documented at +2SD in math (I happen to have been the one documenting both the -2SD and the +2SD, which is why I know the degree with certainty). I postulate that deep content knowledge allows teachers to hone in on core concepts when differentiating downward, and, of course, enables them to have a high enough ceiling themselves to have somewhere to take advanced students. My observation is that content expertise also is correlated with teachers who are less tied to procedural conventions (although they can and will teach them when that's the route needed--but then often multiple options for procedures), which often means they are willing to accept creative solutions, and to reduce unnecessary repetition.

Good instructional specialists have an extensive repertoire of pedagogical methods, tools for scaffolding and experience individualizing instruction which, while conventionally applied in the context of reaching down to make grade-level content accessible, can equally be applied to make above-grade-level content accessible to asynchronously advanced students. And of course, it doesn't hurt if the instructional specialist also has content expertise.

2. Authentic appreciation for a wide range of learners: An attitude free of either condescension for lower-functioning learners or resentment toward higher-functioning learners is critical not only to effective teaching, but also to an inclusive classroom environment, where it is safe to make and learn from one's mistakes.

3. Collaborative team-teaching: THe exact model of collaboration doesn't appear to matter as much--I've seen teams where the students cannot tell which teacher is the content specialist, because both teachers fill all roles on a day-to-day basis, and I've also seen teams where the content specialist clearly does the heavy lifting when it comes to presenting new content, and the instructional specialist is responsible for additional explanations, examples, and re-teaching, either on a group or individual basis. Regardless, the most effective teams trust and respect each other, and operate as equals. They have equal familiarity with the curriculum and the objectives for each day, shared goals for their students, and can transition seamlessly from one partner to the other at any point. (On a side note, administrators also find this convenient, as it makes it much easier to cover teacher absences.)

Institutional qualities

1. Investment in staffing: It takes more teachers to adequately staff inclusion than when all of the exceptionalities are pulled out. If you want it to work, those teachers have to be highly skilled. And even with multiple teachers in a classroom, smaller class sizes are much more conducive. Our high school has an average class size (in a non-pandemic year) of under 20, and typically closer to 15.

2. Investment in staff development: Even skilled teachers benefit from periodic refreshers in strategies for reaching diverse learners, and for working collaboratively with their colleagues. It also helps to affirm institutional commitment to the model and the values on which it is based.

3. Co-planning/release time for teacher teams: the collaborative teaming listed above, under teacher traits, requires a fair amount of time to develop, which should include time outside of class, both engaged in lesson prep together, and in other activities that build effective working relationships. Assigning instructional specialists mainly to specific departments seems to be a plus (with participation in departmental trainings, plannings, and community-building activities).

Notice my institutional list and my teacher-specific list are essentially the same.

Interesting, aeh!

My brain is tossing around the competency model of the successful teachers you've outlined, and it seems like a taller order than what's traditionally included in a general education staff posting.

I'll hold off on more commentary here (concise and I live on different streets!) but am eager to keep this topic rolling if others are interested. If anyone wants to riff on this theme, I've created a new thread here:

http://giftedissues.davidsongifted.org/BB/ubbthreads.php/topics/248240.html#Post248240