Gifted Issues Discussion homepage

Actually, it appears that you agree, as this is what was posted:

In summary:
- Wren first posted that the lack of a sufficient amount of money was the problem,
- indigo fine-tuned that to say that HOW money is spent may make a difference.

very good indigo. Appreciate the clarification. I was also going to add, that in dd's elementary public school in NYC, we, the parents raised close to $1MM per annum. 500 kids, grades K through 5. Every year. And we had a whole grant writing team, so we would get 300K to enhance the computer lab or 200K to pay for a Spanish teacher. Money well spent and good outcomes.

The Pollyanna Principals: How one consultancy capitalized on New York prep schools’ mad fad for “anti-racism”
by Charles Fain Lehman
City Journal
March 15, 2021

In late January, months of feuding at New York City’s Dalton School spilled into public view. In an anonymous letter, a group of alumni and parents wrote that the school they had long loved was abandoning real education in favor of “an obsessive focus on race and identity” in every class.

In particular, the letter’s authors blame Pollyanna, a New York-based Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) nonprofit. The consultancy’s “racial literacy” curriculum, the letter claimed, “has already permeated Dalton classes from social studies to science” and contributed to “some of the worst abuses this year”—incidents like the one in which a Jewish student was forced to play the “racist cop” in science class, or the art class on “decentering whiteness.”

Pollyanna may be new to outraged parents, but it is familiar to the New York prep school community. Over the past several years, Pollyanna has spread quietly through the toniest schools in New York City and across the country. Buoyed by last summer’s protests, it tripled its clientele to over 60 schools in 2020, stretching from Harvard-Westlake in Los Angeles to remote Vermont Academy. That includes some 25 schools in New York—hyper-exclusive institutions like Dalton, Horace Mann, Spence, and the Hunter College Elementary School.

...

Indigo, I suspect we both hold this view of the other's thinking, and there is a lot of water under this bridge between us. We ought to agree to disagree. At least, that is what I plan to do.

Thanks for this, Bostonian. It's interesting to read about the consultants providing advice on the curriculum changes.

Within my personal network, anyone in EDI who holds out a shingle in the area usually has a PhD in behavioural science or psychology (particularly organizational psychology). Where there is an intersectional lens - such as in Indigenous reconciliation work - there is often also graduate level training in the culture of the community partner. But again, these are consultants to organizations of adults. It seems surprising the Dalton team didn't conduct more thorough due diligence. These are delicate topics, and the approach required to designing a sensitive and inclusive curriculum requires experts in EDI and pedagogy.

The parent letter linked in the article seems heartfelt. Hopefully the Dalton community is able to resolve its differences and engage in meaningful and civil dialogue. Certainly they don't lack the resources to do so. It's pretty difficult for organizations, though, once the conflict has risen to the level of anonymous publicity.

Thanks for that Bostonian, as I had no idea that a single company was driving all this.

What is interesting to me is the groupthink among all these administrators. Did nobody see the criticism coming? Likewise, did nobody see that if everyone else was doing this, that not doing it would be an effective marketing differentiator?

I also read the Atlantic article posted. I knew this already, but the article reinforced that while the administrators make near-term decisions, the long-term health of the school is determined by wealthy donors. If they walk away, the school withers.

There are over 34,500 private schools in the US, and Pollyanna is covering 60 - admittedly, 60 with an outsized voice on the right tail, and so it's probably a litmus test of where the broad market is going. So to mithawk's point, the antiracism policies might not be a differentiator within-category, but are becoming table stakes to reinforce perceived value differences between categories. At least, I suspect that's the thinking of the administrators.

Re: groupthink? My personal opinion is this is CYA tokenism on the administrators' parts. I doubt these administrators actually believe what they're instituting, at least not to the degree that dissenting parents are characterizing the programming, but are aware of:

a) How divergent their demographics are from the mainstream - and, by extension, how it might look for prospective donors to make endowments with institutions that are less than sterling reputation-wise
b) How public opinion is increasingly turning to the intersection of affluence and racism
c) Their next jobs will require proven EDI programming

Several giants have fallen in the public sphere to allegations of racism in the last year, and these policies are (IMO) insurance as the larger world shakes out its take on racism, and the appropriate balance of institutional responsibility to redress it.

As I've said upthread, perhaps I'm being cynical. But to see such wild swings in curriculum ideology suggests the views were not held innately before, particularly where actual interaction with under-privileged and marginalized communities is slim to nil.

Truth is ultimately not about another's thinking, nor defined by a particular person's knowledge base. Rather, truth is about the facts and evidence (both anecdotal evidence from lived experiences, and empirical evidence, from research). With empirical evidence being based on IRB approval, ethical guidelines, and informed consent, anecdotal evidence may be more readily available, and relatively more easily and quickly collected.

There are currently large curricular changes taking place at all levels, preschool through PhD/MD, impacting gifted pupils and all students, at both private and public institutions. As a lifelong learner, I seek to continuously expand my knowledge base, including reading all I can to understand and anticipate the changes in the policies we live under, and the how-and-why mechanisms driving those changes. This includes taking the time to read the information presented in articles, such as the one posted in the OP of this thread, and the various supporting linked references. Others may choose not to delve in to the details. Some may prefer to opine and may conflate theory with fact.

As previously alluded to, following the money can be especially illuminating when it comes to motivations for ignoring, overlooking, suppressing, censoring, discounting, or rejecting truth, facts, data, and evidence which may be inconvenient to furthering a monied plan or goal.

The body of verified facts and evidence is ever growing; Truth is always emerging; Bias, lack of objectivity, double-standards and falsified records are belatedly exposed; Science is never settled; therefore it is beneficial for persons to share and compare their respective knowledge base.

But the ability to perceive it is. Peace out, indigo. I wish you well.

Hence the benefits of cluster grouping by readiness and ability.