Gifted Issues Discussion homepage

The Miseducation of America’s Elites
Affluent parents, terrified of running afoul of the new orthodoxy in their children’s private schools, organize in secret.
by Bari Weiss
City Journal
March 9, 2021

...

What does it say about the current state of that meritocracy, then, that it wants kids fluent in critical race theory and “white fragility,” even if such knowledge comes at the expense of Shakespeare? “The colleges want children—customers—that are going to be pre-aligned to certain ideologies that originally came out of those colleges,” says a STEM teacher at one of New York’s prestigious prep schools. “I call it woke-weaning. And that’s the product schools like mine are offering.”

...

Interesting read, thanks Bostonian. This article speaks to the misappropriation of power, and some families' obsession with Ivy at all costs.

I'm going to put the issue of "woke" and race baiting aside and speak to parental agency in curricular choice.

The median US household income in 2019 was $68,700*. This article is discussing schools whose tuition ranges from 58 - 72% of the median household income for one student to attend for one year, in after-tax dollars.

The families paying for this tuition are affluent, (largely) two-income households who are choosing to send their children to a private institution. They have the capacity to choose alternatives if the curriculum doesn't suit their goals.

To me, what this speaks to is cowardice and entitlement. These families feel entitled to send their children to the so-called "best" programs in the country. This article makes very plain that the value proposition of these prep schools is Ivy access, not actual learning or instruction in responsible citizenship. Yet, despite the resources at their disposal, they feel disempowered. They are concerned with following orthodoxy that is perpetuated at the "best" schools, and not stopping to question whether: a) The cost of subjugating their core values is higher than the benefit of their children attending the parents' preferred schools, and b) They are being fleeced.

I note that the article suggests many parents at these schools object to the curriculum. Based on the donations listed, and tuition fees, these parents could easily form their own school which focuses on their curricular goals.

In the past, I've costed out building a private school in Canada - what would be considered elite curriculum without all the bells and whistles of the voluntourism-esque extra curriculars and lush grounds - and these tuition fees are running at 3-4x costs.** So even if one quarter to a third of parents share this view and opt out, they could recreate a viable alternative that meets their needs, and potentially have money left over to offer subsidized spaces for low-income and/or racialized students to promote equality of access. Now, THAT would benefit everyone and put the lie to any concerns about these parents being racist. As it stands, those parents are paying an awful lot of coin to get the private school papal blessing, and not a lot of social ROI. Thankfully they can make an empowered free-market choice and vote with their wallets, while also optionally sharing the wealth with those less fortunate, likely at no added personal cost.

It requires initiative and courage, both important traits to model for their children. Bad business deserves to fail. If a better model exists, build it!


*From the US Census: https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-270.html

**I note that I've benchmarked to Canadian teacher salaries, which are unionized and much higher than for comparable positions in the US, so this may overestimate the true cost of starting a US school.

I suspect the phenomenon of paying for an education one doesn't really find satisfactory, but ostensibly chose (and then paying extra to get the education one wants) plays out to some extent at least a bit further down the income scale too--and likely for related reasons. aquinas's observation rings true--they are buying not an education, but access to something else (Ivy enrollment, social status, a particular community), and the education per se is sacrificed to that other goal. Even high-performing suburban public school districts are subject to the same pattern, but instead of paying a specified tuition for an undesirable educational product, families pay higher property taxes in exchange for access to a certain kind of "free" public education--often also with markers that provide increased access to elite post-secondary institutions, social status and communities with certain qualities. And then on top of property taxes, parents pay for afterschooling and tutoring, to get the education they think their children need.

This isn't to disparage private schools, high-performing public schools, or the families who choose them, but simply to note that, for most affluent families, there is choice involved. And those choices could be wielded in different ways, whether to prioritize education or other values, and using different approaches to achieve their goals. Paying for elite private or elite public schools is not the only way to invest financial resources in high quality education.

And btw, private teacher salaries, on the average, are lower than public school teacher salaries. And typically have smaller benefit packages. If one funded a private school at public school teacher salaries with benefits, one could likely attract some quality staff.

What public school districts spend per student:
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2019/school-spending.html

It is my understanding that "spending per pupil" is largely reflective of teacher salaries/benefits and varies based on cost-of-living in different areas.

After teacher salaries/benefits, the next largest budgetary categories for many/most schools are administration and building/grounds maintenance (not necessarily in that order).

"Spending per pupil" is not necessarily correlated to educational resources, materials, opportunities, experiences which are made available to students.

Very interesting and insightful 20-page downloadable PDF:
https://www.hw.com/pdf/Anti-RacismatHarvard-Westlake.pdf

On page 6, two artists are featured. These are their websites:
1) Basil Kinkcaid - https://www.basilkincaid.com/
2) Janna Ireland - https://www.jannaireland.com/
From her website, I understand "Her name rhymes with "Donna," not "Hannah."" But I do not understand "Hard J" as I am familiar only with G having "hard" sound as in the word goat and a "soft" sound as in the word gem... where the "soft" sound of the letter G is the same as the sound of the letter J.

On page 8, the Glasgow Group is mentioned. This is their website:
https://www.theglasgowgroup.org/
- This is their election guideline PDF, which specifies being NON-PARTISAN, focusing on issues not personalities, and creating a culture of dialogue not debate:
https://www.theglasgowgroup.org/upl...w_group_guidelines_for_election_2020.pdf
- Another PDF links to the American Psychological Association (APA) webpage on Civic Engagement:
https://www.apa.org/education/undergrad/civic-engagement

Again, very interesting material... layers and layers of links and more links to explore. This may take some time.

Thanks for the clarification, indigo. My point in noting public school per pupil spending was actually in comparison to private school tuition--which in turn is not necessarily fully representative of per pupil spending, as many private schools rely heavily on giving outside of tuition (as do many high-performing publics). But it's at least a point of reference when discussing educational costs and return on investment.

And fwiw, private schools' principal expenditures are not all that different, with possibly more emphasis on capital/building/grounds expenditures, and somewhat less on personnel.

Of course, as you rightly point out, spending is not necessarily reflective of effectiveness or meaningful resourcing. But I think that's one of the takeaways from the original article.

I think "hard J" means j as in "just", or the "dg" in "edge", while "soft J" is the sound represented by "si" in "vision". Used in English mainly in loan words from other languages, such as "raj" or "Beijing" (ironically, mispronounced with respect to the original languages--which both use the hard J sound in these words).

Thanks, aeh.
Do you have a link or source/reference for the hard/soft "J" sounds?
And, may I also ask, do you have a word with the letter "J" as an exemplar of the soft "J" sound?

Not saying this is the height of reliable sources, but here's a tidy rundown from the thefreedictionary:
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Forming-the-zh-Sound.htm

I added a couple of examples to my previous post while you were writing your response...

Thank you, aeh.
When I did a websearch for soft J, and for hard J, I did not find word pronunciation examples, but the urban dictionary had meanings for these.

The sound of ZH, I get this... as in Beijing.
Others have also shared some interesting pronunciation examples with me:
- Hallelujah
- Elijah
- jalapeno

Taking all this into account, the female artist featured in the OP's linked material would be pronounced like " John - uh "
("Her name rhymes with "Donna," not "Hannah." Hard J.")

Thanks again.

Exactly. Talent (i.e. compensation) is, unsurprisingly, the lion's share of expenditures for most human capital based organizations. In our public system in Canada, the salary component of K-12 expenditures reaches up to the high 80%s, mostly thanks to the paltry materials offering for students, generous union pay increases, and increasingly dilapidated infrastructure.

From my own research among Canadian private schools, this figure can creep below 50%, reflecting some combination of, among other factors:

- endowments for financial aid,
- property and equipment,
- lower teacher compensation,
- contracted extra-curricular activities,
- lobbying / consulting fees,
- travel

With the price points mentioned in the article, I would expect the compensation share of tuition to be around 50-60%.

As with any purchase, it's best to be informed about what you're paying vs what you're receiving. And aeh, you make an excellent point about public schools not being free - there's an implicit housing price and tax cost associated with living in the catchment of competitive schools.

This study from the St. Louis Fed finds there is about an 11% price premium at purchase, all else equal, for mean houses located in the zones of schools one standard deviation above average in terms of school "quality" (based on MAP scores). The study doesn't extrapolate premia beyond 1SD, but even with a conservative estimate of a linear relationship, it wouldn't be out of the realm of reasonable for a family to pay upwards of $200K for school quality premia on a $1MM home in urban areas served by magnet schools, and a 10%+ lift in annual property taxes as a result. And, if families move once to recalibrate for preferred middle/high school, you could see transactions costs plus premia exceed $250K easily.

Put in that context, for a single child household, the private schools mentioned in the article are 2.5-3 times the annual cost of a public school with scores ~2SD above the mean - just shy of $17K/year amortized over 12 years with one move for a $1MM home vs a median US private tuition + ancillary expense of about $16K/year.

So, at the risk of gross over-simplification from these *very* rough estimates: factoring in the opportunity cost of capital, families with one child would be financially better off sending their child to private school than splurging on a house in a competitive school district, all else equal, in many parts of the US. This relationship would be even more unfavourable for public school attendance the more expensive the home, and the smaller the % down payment.

Sources: https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/publications/review/10/05/Chiodo.pdf

https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-private-school

This may be an especially important realization for families with a gifted child, as government schools are increasingly focused on equal OUTCOMES, and may not offer gifted children learning opportunities and experiences with appropriate challenge in their zone of proximal development (ZPD), and with intellectual peers.

Unfortunately, in following the links from the OP's post, some of the wide range of materials appear to suggest a goal of equal OUTCOMES also at this private school... or even a ceiling imposed based on race/ethnicity... specifically shaming white pupils based on the color of their skin.

In selecting a school, parents may need to look beneath the surface and beyond past admissions history of a school's alumni.

Well, 2 of my posts got deleted. Probably too political. But I thought my points were relevant to the discussion.

I am in that group paying tuition for a private academic. And my kid is trying for that Ivy, she has legacy.

But I think the whole issue is about what society is going through now. As I had written, Harvard let about 200 less kids in ED, than 2 years ago. Probably due to deferrals. But they let in twice as many African American, first time college than they had last year.

There is a major attitude change. Now, I will not write what I wrote before, because then my post will be taken down.

I only saw your first post, Wren, but think it was relevant, and you framed your commentary reasonably for the forum. I’m sorry I wasn’t able to see the second.

We’re also a private school family, though I will encourage DS to focus on Canadian schools for undergrad. His current school is able to provide a more individualized learning program, to an extent that would not be possible in public alternatives available to us. It’s truly market failure, and it’s hampering students’ futures. It angers me that it is only my privilege that allows DS to access what others like him cannot, through no fault of their own. It’s a contemptible injustice.

If anyone ever wants to get me up on a soapbox, introduce the topic of tenured, unionized teachers and pass me a glass of Shiraz.

Good luck to your DD!

I will put this question to the group: to what extent do you think poor accommodations for different learners (gifted, 2e) are actually a deterrent to families having more than one child? Are gifted children and exceptional learners becoming the human equivalent of luxury goods due to gaps in our education system?

It’s a question I’ve been giving some thought to. In Canada, I fear a focus on integration of different learners into gen ed classes will actually be socially regressive and magnify existing socioeconomic and racial disparities, despite the stated goal being the opposite. 😡

And to add context...we're an eclectic schooling family. We've had children in public, private, and homeschooling, usually more than one of the above at any given moment, with the decision on schooling very much individualized to the child and the moment. (At the moment, public and home.) So certainly, all formats can have their advantages for specific children.

On another note, one of the qualities I like about my place of employment is that our catchment crosses district lines (we're a regionalized school), with both fairly high SES and high needs communities, all of whom contribute to the system, which allows some students (not enough, unfortunately) from less-resourced communities to benefit from the tangibles and intangibles contributed by and typically accessible to more-generously-resourced communities, including some of those associated with college admissions. The benefits accrue both directions, of course, although they are not of precisely the same nature.

Everyone earns a spot the same way, with demonstrated performance in the context of their sending schools, and has access once there (as far as we can control conditions inside school) to the same extracurricular and advanced opportunities. (We don't charge fees for extracurriculars like sports, clubs, or afterschool enrichment activities. Even for uniforms and equipment. Nor do families incur out-of-pocket expenses (including textbooks) for AP courses/exams or dual enrollment up to and including an associate's degree by graduation.) Less talk, more action...

At the extremes, I think it likely does have some impact on the choice to have additional children. Certainly the families I have encountered, especially those with 2e learners, seem to be slanted toward fewer children (anecdotally). I would imagine that, if parenting a child with exceptionalities in the early childhood years (already intrinsically a rather labor intensive age) also involves carting one's child around to multiple specialists, trying to tease out their needs and the appropriate therapies (among which I would include, for purposes of this discussion, appropriately servicing their exceptional strengths), parents might find the thought of "another child like this one" a bit intidimidating. And expensive. All of those therapies, even when partially covered by insurance, add up quickly.

And on integration/inclusion/mainstreaming: I'm ambivalent. On the one hand, I am a strong proponent of inclusionary practices for the left-hand tail, especially when paired with appropriate intensive services (in or out of the general education classroom) for the most critical need areas. When done well, without the flavor of tokenism that can sometimes creep in. And the long-term data on this have been that it is generally net positive with regard to providing greater access to the wider community for most of those who would once have been educated in substantially-separate settings. I have seen students at -3 SD function quite successfully on both an academic and a social level in inclusion settings. Again, when done well.

On the other hand, there are those on both extremes whose needs are so far outside of what a general education teacher has expertise (or time) to address, even with a specialized co-teacher, that differentiated instruction within the general education classroom is not going to meet them where they are or need to be. To be fair, I've had some 2e students at +3 SD also do well socially--but they've had the advantage in our setting of other points of commonality with their peers, in the non-academic side of their education, which has very different metrics for success, many of which are discrete skill-based, often both self-paced and collaborative, and reward initiative and creativity. Academically, the inclusion model hasn't been quite as effective, unless one counts the dual enrollment program, which essentially is inclusion of NT students into advanced coursework (in supported early college coursework).

A strong inclusion classroom will have both skilled general educators and skilled educational specialists (in an ideal world, for both below- and above-level learners), working collaboratively and seamlessly to bridge core content to each student at their need level. That's the theory, anyway. I've seen it work for about a 4 SD spread when two skilled teachers trust each other. I've also seen catastrophic failures. So much depends on the execution.

I’ll give your reply some thought tomorrow, aeh, when my brain less closely resembles a pancake.

Re: execution - this apparent idiosyncrasy in outcomes is a good way to capture my concern. That there is a distribution of outcomes is to be expected, but that the confidence interval around the mean can be so wide seems preventable through intelligent systemic design. It sounds like your district is particularly thoughtful in its programming.

More anon...

I don't have a child with any learning exceptionalities, of the struggling sort.

Though there is a K-8 school in Manhattan that provides full integration. They have wheel chair access, so they can accommodate anyone. So children without, spend 2 or 3 years from K-8 in a integrated classroom. There is only about 8 -10 kids in the class. There are teaching assistants for all children that need it. There were high tech computer mice for children, who can't move, to use. This was a dozen years ago. It takes a lot of money and should be concentrated in a few schools, just like gifted programs, otherwise the resources are not as good.

I just think that they need to equalize opportunity by improving tech and wifi in schools. So that any child can get access to online programs, if they have the interest and ability.

In the article, it was mentioned that Fieldstone offered about 5 science classes for 11th and 12th graders. Astrophysics, etc etc. But now kids can do coursera. DD has done oceanography and marine science courses in coursera. (thanks Bostonian for bringing that up in some discussion) She can do AP Chinese as a self study because there is preply. (that does cost money for a tutor) but it is an example that there are many options now out there.

As for having one child. I was older, no success earlier, hence more than one was just not an option. But in hindsight, one has taken a lot of energy, though I provided so many different extracurriculars and travel. We have a dog, going to be 12 this summer. She started out the first year with problems. Thought it was kidneys, turned out to be diabetes insipidus. So lot of tests, leaking problems all over. And she was a frisbee dog and two years ago had spinal surgery, and it just goes on and on. Luckily I bought insurance when she was 7. But it takes a lot of time and care to deal with all her stuff. Just this past week, she had a cyst taken off her ear (after it grew back from being removed last year) and had a little "liposuction" to grow stem cells to try and help the degeneration in her shoulder. And there are many other things-- due to frisbee related trauma on her body. I do not know how someone deals with stuff with their kid. I cannot imagine the effort and stress it must be to provide accommodations for their child when they need it to optimize their abilities.

I think that that I am overboard in what I try and provide for my child. We have extended family where the parents put all 6 kids in soccer. Two oldest boys got free rides at a very good school with soccer recruitments. She asked me how I got DD into sailing. I said I had sailed as a kid and it was just one of the things I had her try. She has made a TV commercial, she has come second in a ballet pointe competition, she has won speech and debate competitions, done well in DECA. She then narrowed her focus on tech, sailing and marine science but she knows what she likes and doesn't like. And at 15, she had been to all 7 continents. I could do this with one kid.

I echo the misgivings that Aquinas has regarding being able to offer broader educational challenges and supports to our DD due to the fact that we have (currently) an income which permits it.

This is a why I support test based gifted education that is open to all that can cross the bar as opposed to just the parents who can afford choice for their offspring. Instead of being ‘exclusionary’ I believe it to be the most inclusive option we have in an otherwise very unfair world.

I grew up in the UK as a mixed race child who absolutely encountered bias and prejudice from some individuals even in my own family. But by and large most people that I encountered, then and now, have just accepted me or rejected me based on who I am.

Now that I have a very white looking daughter it really saddens me she will be put upon in just the same way that I was just because of her outward appearance. If anything an institutional form of racism appears to be brewing. Multiplying both sides of an inequality just reverses its direction but makes things on either side of the equals no less unequal in absolute terms.

I found the discussion covered in the embedded link Url in the ‘title article’ concerning the real world applicability of the IAT to be quite concerning.

I hope that I have done a good enough job of helping by DD to calibrate her BS detectors for her not to get sucked into feeling guilty about having light colored skin.

PS - read this while it is hot - I am sure that the censors will have it soon.

Suggestion for this thread: all welcome to agree or disagree.

This topic is inherently tied to race and equity, and the parents here are largely sensitive and respectful in the discussion.

It is not mutually exclusive for visible minorities to be discriminated against, and the policies which seek to redress that inequity to also have unintended (and damaging) consequences on those not in minorities or traditionally underrepresented populations.

For example, outside of the sphere of racial inequity and from the intersectional lens of gender/giftedness as the parent of a boy, I have simultaneously held conflicting views: that it is desirable for more girls in his cohort to have access to traditionally masculine learning opportunities, while also feeling concern that the absolute number of opportunities available to my son - on a population basis - are lower than for females.

Mods - a request. Can we please keep that spirit in mind here and allow more politically themed posts in this specific thread, so long as they don't veer into the territory of stating or insinuating that a specific identifiable group (race, gender, etc) being somehow less intrinsically suited to certain paths? To have a fulsome and enjoyable discussion requires us to delve into HOW these policies are enacted, and that necessarily skirts on some topics that would otherwise be verboten.

Thanks all.

Thanks for the link madeinuk. The intense light shining on IAT is changing opportunities for our kids, in education and jobs. Could be good or bad, depending on whatever you are.

I think it is very difficult to proceed with a real discussion here without being censored because of all IAT implies and the impact on institutions, like increasing first time college AA to Ivy's. My kid is not first time college AA so I show her the trend, I help her strategize and optimize her opportunities and hope for the best. In the long run, it makes her more strategic, more competitive. She decides what she wants and understands the rules and barriers to get there.

I think the trend is a good thing. I look at Ellen DeGeneres losing her job less than 25 years ago for coming out. A few years later she is an icon, top in her field. Change is good. We will get the best and brightest from all parts of society. I was going to add here, but will get censored again.

In 2020 and 2021, in the wake of greater attention paid to what is termed racial inequity in the U.S., many selective public schools with test-based admissions, such as Lowell in San Francisco and Thomas Jefferson High School in Virginia, have abandoned their admissions policies, because they had too few black and Hispanic students. All standardized tests in the U.S., whether IQ, SAT and ACT, NAEP, state-wide achievement tests, or exam school tests, exhibit substantial differences in results by race. Those tests have not been found to be biased against blacks and Hispanics in the sense of underpredicting future academic performance. So in deciding whether test-based admissions is fair, it should not matter to what extent the reason for demographic test score differences is "intrinsic".

Fascinated by madeinuk's liniked article to IAT and its validity and application. I can't speak to that angle and will explore it more fully to inform myself.

My personal, unscientific opinion about IAT is that it is a useful instrument in promoting openness to others in self-aware, mature adults when considered in private, or in confidential consultation with a professional well versed in diversity.

I think it is also instructive, from a population research lens, to have reliable benchmarks for aggregate social attitudes (anonymized) over time, using reliable instruments and voluntary participation. I can't opine whether IAT is one given my current knowledge.

I am concerned about its use in adolescent populations, particularly where they do not have the maturity or life experience in which to contextualize their views. Moreover, I have grave concerns - in any context, adult or adolescent - with an individual's private results being shared with a group.

FYI this exact topic was covered in a College Confidential thread, which lasted for about a day before it was shut down.

https://talk.collegeconfidential.co...ave-us-the-varsity-blues-scandal/3507825

Agreed. And where barriers in these instruments exist, they can be assessed and mitigated.

I would also like to see gifted education acknowledged as a need for students from their point of entry into the education system, and resourced accordingly. I don't even necessarily think this needs to be 2SD+ congregated gifted initially - just an enthusiastic, committed acknowledgement by the teacher that curriculum can be accelerated *in the classroom*. To aeh's post upthread re: seeing up to 4SD accommodations where there is good collaboration between teachers, it's not an impossibility.

This is it, especially the bolded. Shared experience builds shared perspective.


This is exactly how it should be: the same *high* standards for opportunity of access for all.

Different talents and motivations can drive student outcomes - that's individual agency- but IMO the circumstances they come from should not be determinative of their career success, social connections, or future earning potential.

What teacher-specific traits, and institutional attitudes/policies, drove the successes and failures you've seen, aeh? (I know this is an enormous question. Feel free to be cursory!)

General comments for the group...

One of the challenges here in Canada is a philosophical resistance to the concept of giftedness a priori, before even venturing into the classroom. I know I've heard similar refrains from regular posters here in Australia and NZ. The University of Toronto's education program (OISE) is a good example of where the thought leadership is moving on the topic nationally. It's one of the leading research universities in education in Canada, and it has repealed almost all specialty programming in gifted education since c.a. 2010. It is challenging to enact effective interventions at the institutional level when the policy zeitgeist is "it doesn't exist."

In several major cities in Canada, congregated gifted schools have seen reduced enrolment spaces or been eliminated. When I was involved more actively in public special education advocacy (read: head, meet wall), it was frustrating to see tiered gifted interventions implemented which require the student to have clinically significant harm from an inappropriate environment before placement in a congregated setting is considered. To me, that is like asking a child on crutches to climb around an Escher-esque school, and only be granted ramp or elevator access after a few broken limbs... That it is prohibitively involved for someone with my privileged background to have her child placed appropriately means it would be impossible for someone without it. On that front, I will say that Canada's education system is race blind: there is an equal lack of opportunity for gifted programming for all.

I'm always heartened to hear that gifted education is less moribund for friends in the US. I am sympathetic to the intersectional lens many gifties face (whether 2e, cultural or visible minorities, etc.) because they often have the added challenge of overcoming prejudice or paying to play with less means. It feels like framing the issue around HS exit to elite universities is closing the barn after the horses have left.

Oh yes. Sigh. 10+ years ago my state had yet another review of gifted education, heard good evidence, came to the same conclusions they do every time (under-served population, poor teacher preparation, irrational reluctance to follow evidence based guidelines, blah blah blah)... Finally about two years ago they announced funding so all gifted students in public schools could get some form of "appropriate education" at the school they're in... this finally been actually activated and it's statewide, virtually delivered, glorified pullout programming: 1 hr p/w for 10 weeks in one curriculum area (at best, some options are just enrichment activities like a museum visit). And once this launched ALL mention of subject or grade acceleration (which were accepted as "recommended" by the govt review) have been removed from the education department website and schools which were more supportive of subject or grade acceleration are pushing hard for inclusive classrooms and differentiation... and if you complain this is not enough that's when your child gets offered a virtual pull out. It's so distressing.

In the last 4 months I have had multiple conversations with school staff which are understanding (teachers who know the child) and multiple that clearly imply we are horrible parents, possibly to the point of child abuse (acceleration = bad). Also, complete disregard for the opinions of the actual qualified professionals in our children's life who clearly can't possibly know as much about child wellbeing as teacher "Wellbeing" leaders. This would be teacher wellbeing leaders who have never even spent any 1:1 time with the child (and have clearly never read ANY research about HG children and social and emotional well being). Let me say it again, so distressing.

Note: this child, if we lived in the US, has straight forward DYS qualifying scores on WISC-V and WIAT, and also has excellent portfolio items they could provide. But their school insists there is "no evidence" they need the educational opportunities we are asking for in their area of strength.

Philosophically our public education system is profoundly anti gifted. Some states better/worse than others.

With regard to the article in the OP I did note a number of times while reading that examples were given as proof of problematic curriculum changes that I do not necessarily disagree with. I would be (and am) far more concerned by substituting studying a popular film for deep analysis of classic literature, I just don't think that has the same level of challenge or skill building. But the array of high quality literature available to be taught in schools is vast and it's unfortunate to feel that there are only 10-20 novels that can and should be taught in schools over decades. Erasing of voices and erasing of stories is a valid concern if there is a very short list of "suitable" texts that never change.

My eldest child recently completed the IB diploma and I loved that I had never heard of the novels they studied. And I loved that I could see how deeply they were guided to analyze the text and learn about the world. They did not suffer even slightly for not studying the texts which I studied when I was their age. In fact I am quite certain they learned a great deal more than I did from my yr11/12 English studies.

The same can be said for History. It does seem, from afar, that the US education system seems especially fond of children learning facts like all the names of all the presidents in order. But none the less, I was actually pretty shocked by this quote:



How is it not problematic for a child (or parent) to consider any history class to be purely "fact based". It's not math. Should we be happy if senior school child's history class consists of rote learning a list of "facts". Really?

Surely the purpose of history class is to start to understand primary and secondary sources, source analysis, to consider that history is often told by the victor, that certain stories are privileged and other's ignored? To read widely and talk philosophically?

I did not study history in senior school. In yr9 I complained to my school's principal that the yr9 Australian History class was racist and sexist (girl's school btw). That there was not a single woman mentioned in our class, and the only mention of indigenous people was with regard to a massacre that was presented as being the fault of the indigenous people that they were massacred by invading British. I was sent to the library for the rest of the semester to do a project on a historical woman, because they literally had no honest comeback to my complaint that justified returning me to class, particularly as an all girls school covering ZERO women in history. I think it's pretty great my kids aren't being taught the exact same course 30+ years later.

Surely there are many equally interesting and complex ideas from American History that could be covered rather than a list of presidents and commonly known facts from that period? Most Australian history courses are now much more focused on aboriginal history, but I am not sure it was ever a thing, at least in the last 50 years, to memorize our past prime ministers. That said, overall I don't think our history teaching in schools has ever been quite so inwardly focused as the US approach seems to be (again from afar). My eldest studied IB History (HL), and this was very globally focused, I see that as a good thing. My middle child is currently studying yr10 history, the school offered multiple choices at this grade, but from memory not one of them happened to be Australian history. "Hot Wars", "Cold Wars", "Roman Empires: Rise and Fall", "International Justice and conflict" etc.

I do feel like there are so many topics that have in recent times become impossible to discuss rationally and openly. And children and teens are getting some weird messages. And I do think that is tragic. But high quality instruction does not require our children to be taught the exact same content we were, particularly in the humanities and sometimes they actively should not be taught what we were.

The references to no longer studying certain texts or content just seems like chest beating to me. Much of the other content though was quite alarming. We do need to learn to find and change our own biases. We do need to aware of our privilege.... That includes children of multi-millionaires from historically disadvantaged backgrounds, teaching them they are oppressed is surely the opposite of helpful.

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

Well, aeh, I wish I knew which school had your dream team teaching staff. DD's school is a private academic but historically great benefits and pays well. And because it is an HG school, teachers gravitate to it. And there are good and there are bad. And they invest in staff development. They have strong working relationship (offices in the same building) with the Ontario Institute of Studies in Education. So all the things available to optimize teaching staff. Some can only be optimized so much. It would be wonderful if you staff a whole school with your requirements, but alas, mostly you get a mixed bag.

Covid hybrid has really brought more differences. Some are absolutely amazing, organized with the online and in class synchronous challenges and some not so much. But because of the type of students in the school, they are supplementing with online Khan courses etc, on their own initiative.

I found peer group to be the big advantage in DD's school and the curriculum. A friend, whose daughter got in Stanford two years ago, told me that the admission officer came up to them at the welcome party and said that they like kids from the school because they know they are prepared for what they will find at Stanford. And the school admits about 3 each year from a class of 115.

In a perfect school, we would have a perfect staff. Challenging curriculum and all the extracurriculars to feed interests. This year, extracurriculars were trimmed almost to non-existence. And now societal pressures to even the playing field. In so many ways, the private school experience was not what people were expecting this past year.

Wren--that, of course, would be the challenge. It can work in theory, but rarely does it work perfectly, even with very good institutional support. I'm going to take the rest of my response over to the other thread, so as not to derail this one too much more...

Exceptionally well put.



These two points are precisely why many parents in Australia choose private school. Our university system works differently here, so media complaints about private schools are somewhat more directed more to "wealthy parents buying a place in the old boys network" than "gaming university entrance". Though buying university entrance does come up too, possibly more so in states with little to no select/exam entry schools. In some states the top performing schools academically are always selective schools. In states with few or no select entry schools the top 10 is often entirely private. And our university entrance is 100% final year academic outcomes (medicine has a specialist exam you do during yr12, and an interview if your results from yr12 & med-exam are high enough, some courses are audition/portfolio based like Visual Art or Music degrees).

You can get exceptional pastoral care at some public schools and appalling treatment at some private schools, but on balance, these quotes above tend to hold true.

We have just moved one child from a select entry school who very very clearly wanted to keep them (and we very much wanted them to stay in principle), but the child was not ok. They have moved, with a scholarship, to a very high end private And these two quotes summarize more concisely and with less personal information pretty much everything that needs to be said. With the caveat that the pastoral care at the public school in question was excellent and MANY children were, and could/would, thrive there, but it takes a certain personality and our child did not have that type. There was a flavour to the competitiveness that was not helpful for them.

Agreed. Union rules in my province prevent elementary public school teachers from offering extra-curricular activities to students after-hours. Can you imagine that?

The average wait time for psychoeducational assessment, depending on indication and specific locale, is between 15 and 24 months. I was speaking with a consulting pediatrician recently, who lamented that it is not uncommon for children to age out of eligibility for early assessment for several presenting issues. Her practice often triages cases that have been neglected through other standard channels.

To mithawk's point about explicit vs implicit contracts, I'd say there's also the challenge of explicit vs implicit payment under different school models. Despite the fact that average premia for housing in high-performing school neighbourhoods and private school tuition are roughly comparable (from my rough numbers upthread), the latter nets FAR more bargaining power at the school level simply because the payor is more easily discernible (or concentrated in its advocacy), and teachers are attuned to the fact that they have a responsibility to use the resources at their disposal effectively.

The funding is virtually the same, but the institutional attitude is light years apart.

This point regarding the difference in perception between high-performing public and privates is closely related to the question of choice that was raised much further upthread. (And, if one wanted to bring in public policy, also relates to the thorny -- and far more nuanced than discourse usually suggests -- topic of tax-payer-funded school choice in its various forms.) Gross generalizations: Private schools know families are customers, and feel some incentive to respond to market pressure. Public schools feel families are clients (in the therapeutic sense), and by and large know they will receive reimbursement whether or not their services are utilized (although this is not 100%; enrollment does still affect funding to some extent).

I'm also just a little horrified if the wait time aquinas reported for psychoeducational assessment is in the public schools. Federal law in the USA puts an upper limit of 60 school days on the process, from request to completion (shorter in some states). Even clinic/hospital-based evaluations typically run closer to the 6-9 month range in my region. And if it's the 0-3 population, they'll usually be seen much more quickly. Perhaps the wait time is just shorter here than in some other places. Although I will say that the typical hangup on clinic-based evals here is insurance problems. A familiar story is, child on waiting list for hospital eval, parent's job changes insurance. Child makes it to front of line, only to discover that new insurance is not accepted/doesn't authorize. Family has to start the whole process over at a new provider.

You are rightly horrified and would be justified being quite horrified. And yes, that includes public schools. Here's a news article covering a child who shamefully was delayed 2.5 YEARS for disability based testing for dyslexia. And what is the incremental cost of universal training in an OG reading system for elementary teachers? *crickets*

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hami...t-for-learning-disability-test-1.2918462

Here's another; a blog post from the former chief psychologist of a large school board, which reports 62 students delayed 3 or more years for psychoeducational evaluation. Here's the kicker: this gentleman has decided to remove himself from the public system to better service private clients, despite complaining about a shortage of school psychologists!! Perhaps he moved to private practice because he can process his case load faster out of the board, and is trying to alleviate demand pressure for lower-income families.

http://www.vbpsychology.com/waiting-lists-for-psychoeducational-assessments-in-ontario/

On speculation, I even placed DS on the waitlist for a private psychologist (school psychologist who moonlights by providing fee-for-service assessments...I'll leave the sticky ethics of that for another day). The initial wait time for a screening appointment was 9 months, which ballooned, as this psych was one of the handful whose results were accepted by the school board for giftedness. It's madness.

I could go into a long screed as to why this is the case from a supply management perspective. Feel free to PM me if you'd like to stare at the roadkill. Suffice it to say, this is what happens under unionized education. But speaking purely to psychoeducational evaluation and placement in school - avoiding this is another key value driver of private schools.

Back in kindergarten, when we first attempted to have DS placed appropriately in a public school, the process for identification and evaluation of giftedness, plus the wait time to run through the tiered system of experience-harm-before-admission to congregated gifted would have been at least three years. That was assuming everything went "to schedule" and DS suffered enough clinically detectable damage that he would merit gifted placement, what was left of him. I was unwilling to do that and would have sold my organs to ensure DS wasn't subjected to psychological damage. That was a large part of the reason why we homeschooled initially. And dare I say it, at that time, we were "just" looking at giftedness, no dual exceptionality.

If you'd really like to scrape your jaw off the floor, the IEP placement forms for our provincial education system include multiple spaces for referring indications (e.g. deafness + giftedness). Several school boards only accept intake in their forms - purely a paper pushing issue - for ONE, and require strenuous advocacy on the part of the referring principal for the full list to be included. I remember the advocacy group I was involved in saw a case of a deaf + PG boy whose PG was unacknowledged, despite tooth-and-nail fighting because he was only documented as being deaf.

Another family had four children with exceptionalities, a few with 2e, and their children were placed in THREE different schools at the extreme south, east, and west ends of the city. The parents complained to the district superintendent of special education, because their jobs were at risk due to the commute time. Resistance.

Sadly, the consulting pediatrician I spoke with was flagging even medical evaluations - like ASD early intervention, which happen under the public health system - as landing outside the standard timeframe for early evaluation. Can you imagine?! I will caveat that that isn't an average for ASD, but it's also not an insignificant minority. Now, any time the education and medical systems "speak", the delays are magnified due to administration.


Sadly not so here. The time limits in my province are up to 30 days from date of request to initiate a meeting with the school to discuss the presence of exceptionality to receiving a meeting date. A meeting date!

Suffice it to say, another part of the implicit enrolment contract with private schools is to expedite the IEP process and effective interventions for exceptional learners. The school which my DS attends is, not coincidentally, substantially over-represented for 2e students.

I should also add, these are wait times *after* being placed on a list for psychoeducational assessment. There is a long lead time before that, too - can be 6 months to a year within most schools.

Also, the school board listed in the first article is in a mid-sized city with shorter wait times than the major cities. Note again that the quote below is *after* placement on the waitlist.

"According to the Hamilton-Wentworth District School board, 405 students are currently on a wait list for psycho-educational testing. Wait times for testing can vary – 20 per cent are seen within six months, the board says, while over half of students get tested within six months to a year. But some wait considerably longer. Twelve per cent of students wait between a year and 15 months to get tested and 14 per cent — about one in seven — wait over 15 months."

I would encourage anyone interested to read the parent comments in the first article. Some are quite poignant.

The point of the original article is that at some private schools, parents are afraid to voice complaints to the administration, partly because their children could be asked to leave the much-desired school. It's true that public school administrators and teachers are well-entrenched, but so are the children. I have emailed the school superintendent several times, criticizing anti-racist programming and computer programming clubs that exclude boys. At least she reads and replies. She has no power to expel my children from the public schools. Public school parents can run for and lobby the school board, which hires superintendents.

That’s right, and that analysis I provided speaks to how much parents stand to gain or lose in their decision to leave a private school from rocking the boat: advocacy efforts lost, reduced fit for 2e and special education students, administrative willingness to cooperate, potential delays to identification of giftedness or other exceptionalities, the true financial opportunity costs, etc. This is obviously not including social and emotional disruption to the child from a change in environment. There’s a lot to consider, so thank you for following along.

As I said upthread, racial issues aside, I would not be satisfied in the general case if an organization I was paying to educate my children was doing so in a way that fundamentally misaligned with my values, particularly where I was actively discouraged from expressing concern, and I’d want to weigh the costs of staying vs leaving. Only individual families can determine for themselves when costs exceed benefits.

On the other side of the coin, I will also say this: the documentation from Harvard-Westlake’s anti-racist policies states that the changes in curriculum and activities were at the behest of the parent community. If those changes represent the wishes of the majority of the stakeholders of the school, the administration has a fiduciary responsibility to honour that. These kinds of schools generally have a well-established point of view on social issues, and aren’t shy about advertising that to appeal to their ideal customers. It is well within reason that some people will not be a good fit for the school, and will be asked to leave if their continued participation would substantially reduce value derived for the majority. It’s a fine balance to keep everyone reasonably satisfied. Those decisions should be made with a sensitive and full understanding of the implications for the child.

What response have you received from your superintendents?

I have duly upgraded my level of horror!
I had a sense of that from his website, too. At least, that's his sell to affluent parents, perhaps to assuage guilt about being able to cut the line.
This question comes up on every school psych licensing exam...and if they take clients from within their district, that's not the correct answer...
It's also reminiscent of the situation in certain Southeast Asian countries (Little Dragons) where public school teachers are underpaid, and working with class sizes of 60-70 students, where students learn pretty much what you would expect from the conditions. Then the same teachers run afterschool tutoring businesses where the same students pay them to get the education they were unable to receive during the school day.

FWIW, this is the same challenge that has been facing disabled children in public education since the first federal special education law was passed in the early 70s. "wait-to-fail". Long-standing frustration with it among educators is one of the principal motivations behind the movement toward response-to-instruction/intervention. (Which, I know, also has challenges for GT learners.)

And now that I have picked my jaw up and dusted it off...

I see your point, Bostonian, regarding fear of being asked to leave privates vs the obligation of publics to educate residents. Yet families who can afford to send their children to elite privates clearly still have more choices than those who cannot, including voting with their checkbooks (does anyone still use checks? voting with their EFTs?). As much as parents can freely express opinions to public schools without fear of having their children expelled, they also cannot take their tuition money and their child, and go to an institution that better aligns with their values (moral, philosophical, educational or other). (Comment: I alluded to school choice/school funding topics upthread, which I find to be a complex issue analytically, and one of ambivalence personally, as a public school educator myself. Not trying to start hares here.)

Exactly, it's downside management, not upside optimization.

Paying full tuition and having complained, privates will show you the door so fast. I have learned to just go with the flow. Parents are afraid to complain about anything and being asked to leave dd's school.

And where in North America are public school teachers not unionized?

And, in my experience and travels, I find the curriculum in SE Asian countries was way above and challenging compared to North America. Whether there is 60 kids in a class. I remember traveling in 1998 in Vietnam and high school students approaching me so they could practice their English. I remember having discussions with guides about their science curriculum.

And when I we moved to Toronto, I just booked a private psychologist and had the testing done. And had a principal at a local school help me with the whole IEP. I am not good at waiting. Though the public gifted (in a good neighborhood) was awful. I should have put her in Montessori or something before she went private in 7th grade.

I agree that the net result of the system in many of the SE Asian countries is far and away more effective than in NA. It's just problematic from the standpoint of equity, since, in the countries I was referencing, those who can't pay for afterschooling really don't have full access to their teachers. From the angle of releasing market forces on the teachers who provide direct instruction, it could be an interesting analysis and discussion, especially in combination with conversations on unions.

I heard the red phone ringing on my long weekend of procrastination, and will dip into the success factors thread to provide a “critical discourse” (*snort*) on unionization’s effects on educational resourcing later with anyone interested!

I await your critical discourse with baited breath! See you on the other thread...

Actually, various "School Choice" programs DO provide an opportunity for parents to take their tuition money and their child, and go to an institution that better aligns with their values.
That said, a family taking their tuition money and their child to another institution is dependent upon being able to find a school which better aligns with their values... which in turn depends upon the existence of a variety of distinguishable differences among schools.

Meanwhile, it is my understanding that several private / independent schools are beginning to move toward grading policies which provide "equal outcomes." If private school families, out of fear of dismissal, do not successfully advocate to maintain schools which provide academic challenge at each pupil's zone of proximal development, as well as intellectual peers, then soon all schools may be indistinguishably similar, in capping the growth of students at the top, in order to eliminate achievement/performance/excellence gaps and provide equal outcomes.

The gathering of parents to discuss their views, as presented in the OP's article, is key.

Ultimately, the issue for many / most / all may be downside management, not upside optimization.

I have not heard of equal outcomes in private schools. I think they work with students so as to not have failures. But in my experience, it is easier to have equal outcomes in the public. One kid, 12th grade in the local public high school, had an 8% in math and the teacher let her to some worksheets to pull it up to a 50% in order to pass. Mother told me. She didn't think it was an issue. And the kid is going to university.

This may accelerate and become widespread with top-down pressure.

For example, elite colleges/universities blacklisting private high schools who do not present a sufficiently diverse number of potential applicants.

In actuality, or for appearances, elite employers could similarly blacklist colleges/universities who do not present a sufficiently diverse alumni pool.

Not finding the old posts I'm seeking, at the moment. Therefore I may update this list later, meanwhile these old posts are somewhat related:
- Jobs at elite firms (2015)
- Students who get flushed along through the system and graduate without basic skills may also be employed alongside others in the workplace (2017)
- there is a movement away from holding students accountable, and toward blaming the system (2020)

Sharing with the group an article from the Atlantic today titled, "Private Schools Have Become Truly Obscene", which may be of interest. The subhead is, "Elite schools breed entitlement, entrench inequality—and then pretend to be engines of social change." Note: the author formerly taught at Harvard-Westlake.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/04/private-schools-are-indefensible/618078/

This instagram account (linked in the above article) provides posts by some of the dissenting parents - to provide more context:
https://www.instagram.com/wokeathw/?hl=en

I don't think they look at it that way because they don't get all their choices from one school. They may expect to get top STEM students from Chicago Science and Math high school, and a certain type of student from Dalton. What the Stanford admission person said to my friend is that they know students they get from DD's school will be prepared for the rigor of Stanford.

How many employers go to campus recruiting now? I know that getting a job through online applications is very tough. It would be very nice to have networking options.

This thread has diverged in so many ways. And if you look at the Instagram account and the issues on how this thread was started, it was about white privilege. Then we started talking about optimal teaching -- which then moved to its own thread. The problem with this whole issue is that many of the opinions are based in political views. And why we really cannot discuss it without getting censored. Those instagram account postings sound like Candace Owens to me.

The article describes a negative level of parental competition in private schools known to be feeder schools to elite colleges & universities,
and describes the changes being implemented to the demographics of the private schools' faculty, student body, and curricular offerings.
Questions are raised as to the future of fundraising and enrollment at these private schools.

Private Schools Have Become Truly Obscene
by Caitlin Flanagan
April 2021
The Atlantic

On the topic of parents' negative behavior: On the topic of tuition, fundraising, and planned changes:
Note: the article, and several linked resources, exist on the WayBackMachine, internet archive.

It is why Harvard still uses legacy. Donations dropped off the cliff when they tried not to use it.

Dalton wants to match the demographics of NYC public schools? What demographics? Visible, skin color? What about knowlege differences? A friend who taught K in a very poor public school was trying to teach the kids to count to 10 by the end of the year. And the alphabet. Is Dalton really going to have a reflection of the demographics? Or are they just going to take wealthy kids of ethnic diversity south of 96th street?

I think there are many things you can do but swinging the pendulum so far, it becomes like in 1974 when they wanted to do away with day light savings changes and realized after one year it was a really bad idea.

Education in general has fallen behind, corporations are falling behind. China is investing in research, infrastructure and the US is taking away voting rights. And we have covid.

I don't think any school is so good. I am paying for a private HG academic school and my kid still has to supplement. And had to create a whole extracurricular leadership thing outside of what the school offered because they are not great. But the best option in Toronto. Best does not mean great or even good, just best. But because she had to scramble and find her stuff gave her the skill set she needs to survive (I hope),

Maybe my comments are not relevant. But I think kids need a good curriculum, opportunities and taught truth. No more white washing history. Give wifi and computers to schools that don't have it. There is billions spent on campaign ads. Billions every election year. Trillions spent on foreign wars that accomplish nothing. If they invested in cyber war, they would have won years ago. Just go in and take the foreign money. Hack their systems. Russia and China do it without spending trillions and they are winning. There is never money for schools that need it. And to me this is the real problem.

I think you just hit the nail on the head, Wren. Definitely relevant, IMO.

Over time, expenditures on education have not been shown to correlate with performance/achievement. While spending MORE money may not improve learning, how the money is spent may make a difference.
1) https://www.americanexperiment.org/is-there-a-link-between-school-spending-student-achievement/
2) https://washington.cbslocal.com/201...een-school-spending-student-achievement/
3) https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/student-outcomes-does-more-money-really-matter/2019/06

A few links discussing cost per pupil -
1) https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2019/school-spending.html
2) https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/per-pupil-spending-by-state
3) https://educationdata.org/public-education-spending-statistics#public-education-spending-statistics

This is just a sampling of the many sources of similar information found online.

While there has been a move toward equal outcomes and inclusive classrooms with various levels of readiness and ability, studies have shown that cluster grouping by readiness and ability is cost-effective and tends to help ALL students learn more.

You might find a summary of the effects of unionization of teachers on student outcomes and teacher quality in this thread interesting:
http://giftedissues.davidsongifted.org/BB/ubbthreads.php/topics/248294/2.html

I think you'll find you're onto something, indigo, because of how funds in a unionized environment tend to be apportioned. If funds do reach students, more may in fact be better. But, as you say, the HOW is critical.


No arguments from this quarter. So are global grade skips, by and large, but those have similarly gone out of fashion despite evidence to the contrary.

Agreed 100%, wren. It's challenging. But I think we're doing well as a group.

I have my own political opinions - as we all do - and have tried to stick to pieces like consumer choice theory and educational outcomes to peel back some of the confounding variables. But you're right - we have to be oblique in how we discuss this.

The challenge with anti-racism activities and resistance to them in school settings - any politically charged topic, really - is they can pull in unhelpful polarizing mischaracterizations that aren't truly reflective of the positions of the other side. I encountered this in a faith-based school previously for DS, where orthodoxy did not map 1-1 to the views I was teaching at home.

My limited, unfiltered sense of HW's approach, from the information I can access, is that it is leading to an inappropriate degree of political commentary in class. Irrespective of my political views, my sense is that the absolute value on the amount of political discussion is out of line there. As with all things, dose size is critical. But that is one outsider's conjecture, only.

Is the EDI work being used to support critical thinking students and social awareness? Perhaps. Is it encroaching on core studies? Perhaps. Teachers and administrators should not have a political axe to grind in class; that is not the appropriate forum for political activism. However, I do not envy educators the very legitimate challenge of presenting civic and historical education in a way that is both academically rigorous and culturally sensitive. Unfortunately, we live in a time where critical thinking is in short supply, and teachers are finding themselves wading through a minefield of extreme (and often only loosely substantiated) views. It must also be quite confusing for many youths to grow up in an environment where the very essence of truth is called into question on a daily basis.

I'm reminded of an experience I had in 10th grade civics class with a wonderful teacher, with whom I had some political disagreement. He presented the political spectrum in Canada, and mapped a range of policies to the parties, with (what I felt was) some degree of bias. After class, I expressed concern to him privately that he had sidelined one political party, and that perhaps it should be given more discussion time.

The next class, he re-introduced the topic and re-opened the discussion by saying that someone had expressed concern that his lesson wasn't objective enough and that, after reflection, he agreed. So he took the time to invite discussion and provide (what I thought) was a thorough and fair treatment of the other party. He wasn't kowtowing to rich parents or responding to an irate parent ambush. This was an insignificant, rational conversation between a student and teacher that led to greater mutual understanding and a terrific lesson for the whole class.

That, to me, is how all these issues should be handled. It is not the teacher's place - nor the parent's - to dictate classroom political lessons. Truth is the ultimate arbiter of any discussion. I had tremendous respect for that teacher afterwards, and he taught us all a valuable lesson that day about graciously hearing the well-substantiated views of others, even when we disagree, because we might find some truth therein.

May other students be so fortunate as to have a teacher like him. He was an inspiration and a major reason I entered the fields I did.

Yes, unfortunately, ignoring the research and evidence allows powers-that-be to continue under the false premise of equal outcomes and one-size-fits-all education.

I find it interesting to read that statement, aquinas, as unfortunately there are sometimes facts, posted on-topic in various threads, which some forum members may find to be inconvenient truths and may disagree with, and therefore refute as being untrue.

One example may be standardized test score results, viewed through the lens of demographics. For example: when viewed statistically, girls outperform boys in English Language Arts, and boys may be said to outperform girls in math.
1) https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/13/upshot/boys-girls-math-reading-tests.html
2) https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-...ath-than-boys_b_58ed6b78e4b0ea028d568df7
3) https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-boys-better-than-girls-at-math/
That is not to say that ALL girls outperform ALL boys in English Language Arts or that ALL boys outperform ALL girls in math. There can be considerable overlap in scores, and group statistics are not appropriately applied to individuals, as though painting all members of a demographic with a broad brush.

As another example: when viewed through the lens of race/ethnicity, pupils from various demographic groups perform statistically differently on standardized tests.
1) https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED558085
2) https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED558085.pdf (18-page PDF file)
That is not to say that ALL members of a racial or ethnic group will perform better or less well than all members of another group. There can be considerable overlap in scores, and group statistics are not appropriately applied to individuals, as though painting all members of a demographic with a broad brush. While standardized tests can be an objective means of corroborating high school GPA for college admissions, their use is largely being discontinued.

The policies we live under are constantly changing, responsive to research, legislation, commercial interests, and judicial action (lawsuits). Motivations may range from altruism to profit to revenge, and anywhere in-between.

Some policies which have been found to be of benefit are sidelined and out of fashion. We may ask, "Cui bono?" (Who benefits?) and we may follow the money. One example may be the current trend for government schools to disallow grade skipping (whole grade acceleration) despite evidence of the benefits.

In summary, the widespread adoption or rejection of evidence at any point in time is not the arbiter of truth. Research continues and science is never settled.

I totally disagree about the articles on money and school outcomes because I don't think they reflect money well spent. NYC has 8 million people and one school board. They let Catholics run their own schools. They run specialty high schools, gifted programs etc etc. Toronto has 3 million people has 4 schools boards -- with all the executives in each school board, so you have a lot of fat and any money gets caught up in the bureaucracy. Charter schools in NYC (not a fan but aware of how money can be invested) show that if you improve the learning environment, improve curriculum, you get better outcomes. The money is spent directly on the kids. The problem with charter is that they lease the schools and make direct improvements while school boards don't always make the right improvements.

I don't want to go on and on about the problems with school management. But I think any articles can be written about money and school outcomes like any direct research that says eating turnips will cure cancer.

I saw the one accelerated grade school in NYC that was in a district parents south of 96th street didn't want to travel to. Even Columbia parents were not so keen. So kids that only scored around 88th percentile got in and it was mostly hispanic and african american. But the teachers were great, the curriculum was great, they had an up to date computer lab and other resources. Money well spent and they had great outcomes. I know a man who was picked out from his very poor family in Harlem and sent to Andover and then went to Harvard. But not other siblings. He is a corporate lawyer, not his siblings that were not picked to go to Andover for free. He did not have legacy to go to Harvard. But the money spent on his free education allowed him to excel and go to Harvard. And Harvard law.

I disagree that there is no correlation on money well spent does not have good education outcomes.

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.

There are others, as well, working with schools across the country, including Integrated Comprehensive Systems for Equity (ICSE) mentioned in this old post (September, 2020).