Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Easing Pressure on Students Bares Ethnic Divide

No objection here at all to multiple levels. I think that's great. The district in question has multiple levels, and performance requirements were in place for the lowest level.

Then I'm confused; what's the right to squeak thing all about? Can't the students just squeak at the lowest level? That seems completely reasonable to me.

Is he trying to address hyper-competitiveness at the upper level? If so, I'm not sure that turning all levels into the same level (relatively unskilled and skilled players mixed) will help, though I see how it could make things worse, especially for the very few kids who want to make careers in music.

This thread made me remember an article I read a ways back and now I can't remember where I saw it.. maybe even here… that talked about how it's not enough anymore for elite colleges if an applicant got straight As, took all the AP classes and graduated at the top of their class, they want to see the kids that did all of that AND had an interest that they had developed on their own (for instance, the high school student who invents some new thing and is marketing it, or the one who has created a non-profit for helping underprivileged children…etc.)

I don't know how kids have the time to take all the AP classes with all the homework, etc. and still have time to develop something like this. I know there will be some that do, but it is hard even as an adult to find the opportunities that fuel a passion that will look good on a college application. That said, I would rather have my children follow their passions and have that be something that gets them into college than it be all about becoming the perfect student to the detriment of outside interests.

I think the key is to hire a student academic development manager along with a college consultant in middle school. They will have lists of "hooks" that are currently working given the state of Harvard/Princeton admissions criteria.

You want to make the entire process appear organic and effortless, which requires a lot of time and money, as well as multiple retained experts, so ideally you have one parent adopt this as a full-time job during the early high school years to coordinate the management of the enterprise.

Because if you make one wrong move, you will end up at a place like Brown University. And nobody wants that.

It's an arms race. When most top kids took 1-2 AP classes, those who really wanted to stand out would take 3-4. When most top kids take 10 AP classes these days, those who really wanted to stand out will need to take 15. When most top kids take 15 APs, those who want to stand out will take 20, invent something, play multiple instruments, win some national competitions, be the captain of the varsity team, build schools in Africa...

And no matter how much kids (and parents) stretch themselves, the top universities accept a fixed number of students.

The real question is how big a difference in career, earning and life one can make by having the name of a prestigious college on one's resume.

My impression from reading the original article was that the "right to squeak" clause was applicable for kids in 4th and 5th grade and prevented those that were not playing instruments already from being dropped out of orchestra. And the program did not have multiple levels in elementary schools. Asian parents (many of whom might have kids who started Suzuki string lessons at age 3 or 4) were asking for "ability based grouping" in orchestra in the elementary schools.

I googled this topic and I found some interesting commentary on another site:
http://nypost.com/2015/12/29/from-nyc-to-harvard-the-war-on-asian-success/
Excerpts:
"Aderhold canceled accelerated and enriched math courses for fourth and fifth grades, which were 90 percent Asian ...

Using a word that already strikes terror in the hearts of Asian parents, he said schools had to take a “holistic” approach. That’s the same euphemism Harvard uses to limit the number of Asians accepted and favor non-Asians.

Aderhold even lowered standards for playing in school music programs. Students have a “right to squeak,” he insisted. Never mind whether they practice.

Of course, neither Aderhold nor parents in charge of sports are indulging nonathletic kids with a “right to fumble” and join a mostly non-Asian varsity football team."

-- and, not to belabor the obvious, here, but in addition to that big question is the other one:

does that difference matter in a positive way to the child being thus... um... processed? What I mean is-- is this difference still on the positive side of the balance sheet, when it's all said and done? If you have to sacrifice a meaningful childhood and developmental arc to do it, is it still worth it?

Honestly, this isn't even about a prestigious college on one's resume. It's about having One's Top Only Choice of prestigious colleges on it.

This is where "Oh, the horrors-- no, sadly, he went to Brown ... but Shhhhhh, no need to humiliate him..." comes into things.

This is that crazy, people. It just is. I realize that we as parents may have dreams of limitless futures for our kids, in which they get to do exactly as we please, as broad as our imaginations for them--

but they get to dream their own dreams. Or they used to, anyway. Which is probably where academic all-star suicide rates come into things, but that is another thread, isn't it?

I think we've already agreed that a few of the medical specialties, such as dermatology and radiation oncology are the safest career paths to excess earnings.

So this isn't really about earnings.

JonLaw, I'm hoping you are not serious. I know you have a lovely sense of humor and well-honed sarcasm that I enjoy often in your posts.

If you are serious, well, then we are not going to go that route because well, I'm not that good at making all that work look "organic"

The article itself only contains the following part of one sentence regarding "right to squeak":

'and a "right to squeak" initiative that makes it easier to participate in the music program"

More information can be found in the superintendent's 16 page letter, which you can access by using the link near the top of the article. There are four paragraphs regarding the "right to squeak" in the letter, immediately following the page devoted to the G&T math program. The paragraphs alternatively specify "upper elementary and middle school" and "grade 4 to 8." I think that if the right was limited to the first two years (grade 4 & 5), rather than all five years (grade 4 to 8), it may not be so objectionable to those of us who have been criticizing it.