New Jersey School District Eases Pressure on Students, Baring an Ethnic Divide
By KYLE SPENCER
New York Times
December 25, 2015

Programs that serve gifted children have increasingly come under fire because they don't serve the "right" racial mix.

Okay, but I see this as a false dichotomy to some extent-- that is, why is a cap of achievement expected to accomplish the desired outcome in this situation to begin with?

Now "everyone" will have the same "at the ceiling" achievement level, at least on paper, right?

It also seems to me that this is the wrong approach to the underlying problem in the first place. Parents just need to relax about their kids' college resumes and make choices based on the child's best interests.

The district decision to prevent child abuse by limiting access to the peculiar tools that some parents have chosen will harm outliers, certainly. Kids like those of members here will be forced to go elsewhere (if they can afford to). Will it "help" some of those bright and MG youngsters whose parents relentlessly push to make them look PG? Maybe. There are probably more of those kids, statistically speaking.

The real answer isn't to keep showing "Race to Nowhere" and slapping band-aids on the problem, however. The real solution is to admit that not all people are capable of elite performance-- and furthermore, that this is an okay thing. Not everyone can-- or should-- go to an elite college. Heck, probably not everyone should go to college at all.

Programs which serve gifted children and which also don't achieve perfect diversity probably come under fire precisely because they serve (mostly) parents who want special labels and gold stars and distinctions for their children. Those aren't necessarily the children who truly need differentiated instruction. Maybe their parents "need" those things. The kids, not so much, quite often. There is a stereotype that first-generation immigrants tend to parent that way, but it can appear as a cultural construct in almost any highly-educated population.

That still doesn't make those children gifted however.

The problem with such gifted programs is that they base admittance on achievement-- not on need-- to start with, and then people wonder why the participants all seem to be of a particular type? Well, they selected for it-- not sure why that is a shock.

Many details are missing in this article, but the problem of stressed out children is much more complex than the school district can hope to address. Are the stressed out students over-stretched, internally-pushed, parent-pushed, etc.? Not all pressure comes from the schools, surely. The schools may perhaps better approach the problem, however, by providing better systems of support and mental health for the students, rather than lowering the bar for the students who actually NEED the extra challenge.

Also, it is extraordinarily difficult to get people to agree on the "correct" entry criteria for non-regular (gifted, advanced, etc.) programs.

If anyone is interested, the summary reports of an internal and external review of their GT program are on this page, which might provide a bit more detail and nuance.

http://www.west-windsor-plainsboro.k12.nj.us/departments/gifted___talented/general_information/

ETA: note that the district has 30% of students scoring at or above 96th %ile on InView, which is obviously not representative of the USA population.

EATA: actually, I think that may be 30% of students qualifying under Renzulli criteria, which include 96th %ile as an option, but probably isn't restricted to it.

Interestingly, the participation ratios are not so skewed as many other programs when you consider that Asian Americans comprise about two-thirds of their student body and make up nine-tenths of the program.

The article can also be somewhat misleading as to the particulars once you read Aderhold's letter, which you can link through the article. For instance, the "no homework nights" were actually supported by 80% of the parents in the survey. Of course, the "no homework nights" were 5 specific nights tailored to give kids a break.

I would agree that some of the measures are designed to lower the ceiling on high ability kids and make lower ability and/or lower achievement kids feel better since they can now say they are also at/near this new artificially lowered ceiling as well. This is really sad for those of our high ability kids who can excel under the old system with one hand tied behind their backs.

I understand they are focusing on the kids who are so stressed but they are disregarding the kids (actually majority of the middle school kids they surveyed) who are never, rarely or only sometimes stressed. Perhaps those always or often stressed kids are the ones who are over competing and need to change rather than changing the opportunities for all the other kids. Having said that, high school appears to be more of a problems as two-thirds of those students are often or always stressed.

Interestingly, they are moving the entry point of their GT math program from 4th grade to 6th grade ostensibly because only 10% qualified under the existing criteria and more would and should qualify if they move the entry point to middle school. On the one hand, Mr. Aderhold describes the math program as intended for the "rare" student, in which case 10% is more than generous. I would think that multiple entry points would make more sense. Our district starts GT math in 3rd grade but some students (granted not that many each year) have entered the program in 4th, 5th, 6th, and even 7th.

Their "right to squeak" initiative gives me the chills. I agree that even students without talent should have the right to continue instrumental music. However, they should be required to put in some minimal effort to practice. Furthermore, they should not have the right to perform every single piece simultaneously alongside talented and hardworking students and destroy the whole concert for everyone else. Yes, these students and their parents should have the right to perform in the concert too but it should not be at the expense of the talented and hard-working students. Before I entered high school, I had to audition to determine which class, part, chair - everyone got to participate but at the level they have earned. I guess our children are so fragile now that we have to guarantee them equal placement regardless of talent and/or achievement or risk them becoming over stressed.

Oh dear.

I read superintendent Aderhold's letter. I thought it was very good in places (e.g. the stress survey, the fear of getting a B, the need to think seriously about what overachievement-of-necessity is doing to kids). Etc. I had a good opinion of the letter initially. Then I got to the part about midterms and finals. They've eliminated them in favor of projects and "common assessments:"


The logic here seemed off. Why does a final need "multiple parts" if four whole days are set aside for tests in 6-8 classes? That gives 2 finals per day minimum (up to 3 hours per test), which sounds like plenty of time for a comprehensive exam to me. Given that classes like PE won't (or shouldn't!) give a final, and that most kids take ~6 classes, the schedule seems completely reasonable. If teachers are giving constant exams for 2 weeks before finals begin, I suspect that something is wrong with the pacing of the courses and/or with how the kids are being assessed.

Aderhold claims that ditching these exams and replacing them with "authentic learning experiences" (whatever that means) will prepare kids for the reality of college. Since when? I took midterms/finals in nearly all my college classes, and had to write 20-page papers for the very few that didn't require them. There was also some flawed logic about exempting A-students from finals (apparently the "vast majority" of seniors fit this description. Emm....). The problem was their POLICY about grades and exams, not exams per se.

THEN I got the part about the gifted program in mathematics. First, I got annoyed (because they're going to eliminate it in 4th/5th grade), then I reached edumacator happy-pretend-land and guffawed at the following:


Sounds promising, right? Rare students! Exceptional talent! We help them! But...


Clearly, Mr. Aderhold has different definitions for the words rare and exceptional than my DH and I (we were thinking 2-3% for a program like this one), or, say, the world's various public health authorities (imagine if a disease like diabetes, which affects ~10% of the US population was called "rare.") Oh no. Aderhold is clearly saying that putting even 10% of students into a program for rare exceptional talent was too low. Solution: Get rid of it!

I then learned that per the district's own previous policy, 3-5% of students were expected to qualify for this program. So I guess they didn't like their own policy.

After reading the article in the Times, I was sympathizing with the "whole child" side of the debate. After taking a closer look, I no longer feel that way, and strongly suspect that the school board is trying to water things down by replacing finals with projects (which reward students who can't remember all those bothersome facts about functions or the Magna Carta and maybe even draw conclusions from facts) and by pretending that >10% = rare.

IMO, if they want to cut the stress, they need to pace courses properly, cut the homework load (including AP summer work; how many college classes require students to teach themselves the first 2 chapters over the summer??), be honest about the 3-5% thing, and lobby the college admissions committees to stop rewarding MORE activities and MORE AP classes and MORE A++++s and MORE overseas voluntourism internships and etc.

Meh.

The district's internal and external reviews also found that the district scores about 1 SD above the mean on nationally-normed instruments (InView, SATs, ACTs). So that a program designed for the top 4% should actually accommodate ~10% of their school population. I actually think this means that the core curriculum of the district should include a more challenging range (hence the external review recommendation for total school clustering), so that in-class differentiation and ability/achievement grouping will capture a larger percentage of students.

On the elementary/middle school advanced math program, the internal review board based their recommendation to delay the program to middle school on statistically insignificant differences in grades in high school math courses between students who entered the advanced math track in 4th grade vs 6th grade (perhaps because there is a natural ceiling on grades--can't get higher than an A, right? Both averaged low 90s.)

I agree that some parts of the superintendent's letter definitely struck a sympathetic chord. For example, the dramatic reduction in children assigned to basic skills level instruction in reading and math when more objective criteria were instituted. (Apparently, children reading at grade level were being perceived as behind.)

The majority of the changes appear to have come straight out of recommendations from the internal and external review committees.

Aeh, I see your point. The thing is, though, identifying rare students with exceptional talent requires above-level testing. SAT and ACT score averages reflect high-school-aged students only, given that the test companies don't report scores for students aged <13. I don't think it's possible to infer that 10% or more of 9 year olds have exceptional math talent based in 11th & 12th grade SAT scores. In addition, the SAT and the ACT aren't tests for math talent (at least, certainly not at the high-school-age level). They're tests for college readiness. In other words, they're grade-level tests (really, below grade level, given that they test 9th - 11th grade math concepts).

As for the InView test, my understanding is that it's a group-administered test that doesn't test all cognitive areas. The Hoagies site states that it has a "hard ceiling" of 141, which makes it not very good at discriminating between the really talented ones and the ones who are merely very good (in addition to having only a single section for quantitative reasoning).

The district in question used to administer a group of above level tests to find kids who were exceptionally talented. This approach is also used by CTY at Johns Hopkins and other talent search organizations. In Plainsboro, there were 4 or 5 tests and a whole lot of questions in different areas, and they all focused on above grade-level concepts. The fact that a small percentage of kids passed those tests tells me that the tests were probably doing their job properly.

As for ending a gifted program because lots of program and non-program kids got As in high school, I don't really understand that reasoning. Surely, the purpose of the GT program is to stretch the minds of the students and to expose them to ideas that will help develop their minds, not to ensure that they get the highest grades in high school classes?

Will they create a "right to fumble" and open the football team to all comers? No. Sports are one thing Americans are hard-headed about.

Though I have no opinions to share on the OP, I wanted to chime in and say that I have actually used the football analogy several times while advocating for "differentiation" in the early elementary years for my child

There is a massive test prep industry going on in these towns--for elementary schoolers. They have taken the madness we see in competitive high schools and brought it to your 2nd grader. Whether the methods to change things are right, I don't know, but change is desperately needed.

As for right to squeak, I am very surprised to hear the opinions here. There is certainly a place for selective music groups, but I have never heard of an ELEMENTARY school music group in a public school (general band and orchestra) that forces students to "pass" each piece before they may participate in concerts. Please. That is insane. Are general music groups at your children's schools audition-only and pass-based on each piece? I have truly NEVER heard of this and it would outrage me.

I think that there are several youth sports organizations right now that are really trying to change youth sports into a safe place to develop and kids making their own decisions and mistakes (fumbling) is one of those things I have been reading about a lot. This seems to be aimed at younger ages, before high school. One example of an organization like this is Positive Coaching Alliance.

Like ultramarina, I also agree that music should be open to all at the younger ages. There should be try-outs and honor bands and so on at higher levels, but one should be able to participate in school music programs.

Easing the pressure by having less homework does sound like somethings I could agree with. Someone mentioned having to prep in the summer for AP classes. My first thought is that if a student had to do that to pass, maybe they shouldn't be placed in the AP class after all. Teachers may have to change the way they teach in order to cover the material. So although this change might not be perfect, it may have some merit.

I will also add that admission to the GT math program (seems to be the center of the controversy, but frankly the proposed changes are not that big, IMO) happens via parent nomination (red flag) and one high-stakes test (red flag). I'm confused about the program in a lot of ways because it's alternately presented by all sides as super-high-ability genius stuff and...not. And this is a question of serious interest for us here, too. Is it a highly gifted math enrichment program for the 1% with natural math gifts, or is it a double-accelerated math track that starts in elementary school in a very high-achieving district? I've seen the program referred to as two years ahead. In a district like this one (aeh is looking at those figures--the district is waaaaay out there...think Palo Alto ish) it would be reasonable to expect 10% or more of kids in there. Again, both sides of the issues are confusing me on this point. Maybe there needs to be a gifted math and an accelerated math, though how you would determine who goes where, heaven knows. My DD is supposedly two years ahead in math now (tracked into this class this year--6th--based on a test) and I don't consider her a math whiz. (Actually, I wonder how many kids in the district are in her track? At her school it would be about 5%.)

This seems relevant:

"How Not to Ruin a Swimming Prodigy"

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303674004577434550791785644

"As a coach, however, Schmitz stands out for a devotion to rest and play. No less important than his swimmers' splits is whether they are having fun inside and outside the natatorium. At practice, if the kids seem spent, he'll end the workout midway through and start a game of water polo. "He's a fun loving kid, he laughs with them, he plays loud music," said D.A. Franklin, Missy's mother."

The old adage in advertising was that 50% of the money spent is wasted. In these toxic high pressure school districts how much of that studying time actually is helping the kids improve? Lots of kids are probably way past diminishing returns and deep into negative returns.

Our district is nowhere near this toxic, but I think it could be headed in a similar direction. Just a few comments-

Regarding the "right to squeak"- our district has something similar, and it stinks. The string program is very competitive, with lots of kids who begin in private lessons before the school program starts. For the first year of the program, the concerts are organized so that only the kids who have mastered pieces play; if a student has not yet gotten that far in their ability, they sit down for that piece(s) during the concert. My kids progressed quickly on the program despite not beginning early and thus played all the pieces in concerts, but we're so uncomfortable and distressed with the public demonstration of different ability that they both switched to the band program In 5th grade, when it begins. They were frustrated at times with the low general level of music, but everyone played- much better system (both auditioned and all-comers ensembles are the norm in high school.)

Regarding summer AP work, ii agree it is awful. In my DDs AP world class, she had to take detailed notes on several chapters, to be handed in, write a couple papers and answer a long list of short-answer essay type questions over the summer. After they were handed in, the teacher informed them that because she has 75 students taking the class, she would only grade a couple of pre-determined questions, the rest were "for their own benefit." Never mind that none of that busy work is how my DD would approach the material.

But it is in no way related to a kid's ability to be successful in the class. In our district, the AP classes frequently assign summer work because they cannot get through the curriculum in the time allotted- our district often begins school in the second week in Sept, and the AP exams dates are the same for everyone, in May (which means there are usually 6 weeks of school left after the exam, which can be good or a complete waste, depending on the teacher.)

It's quite a ridiculous system but at least here, it is the best option available (the honors level is so low it is a joke, and the levels below that are not worth mentioning.) My DD detests it, and frequently speaks about dropping to honors level, but the (lack of) peer group would make her even more miserable.

The obsession is with grades. Purely grades. Not learning.

I am so distressed by this. Again, I have no problem whatsoever with high-level auditioned ensembles, but there should always also be a musical ensemble available where you do not have to "pass" to perform. Practice is great and can be required of a student (DD is required to practice and keep a log), but not allowing students to perform? Wow.

I did not realize that the dates of the school year would affect the AP testing. Thanks for sharing.

A few people on this thread have described the school district as "toxic". But the NYT article says that many Asian parents moved to the area for the schools. Clearly they do not think it is toxic. There are different visions about what education and childhood ought to be like -- how hard children should study and practice and how much competition there should be. My wife grew up in a country where children were ranked in each subject from 1st grade. This would horrify many Americans, but in her country they probably believed that such ranking motivated children and gave parents a clear picture of where their children stood.

Grades are the currency of the educational economy. The way in which valuation is determined.

Without grades, the educational value of students would be unknown and unknowable. Teachers would be unable to properly allocate their student resources in the educational marketplace and the schools would become academically unprofitable.

This would eventually lead to severe academic distortions of scarce student resources and entire school systems would collapse.

Apologies for another sports related link, but this one seem apt:

"Don't 'Throw Until You Die'"
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/15/opinion/don-t-throw-until-you-die.html

'In the last year, Nomo began complaining of shoulder pain. But his request to ease up was rejected gruffly by his manager, a onetime pitching star out of the warrior tradition whose philosophy has been described by Robert Whiting, the pre-eminent American expert on Japanese baseball, as "Throw until you die." '

More isn't always better. It's just more.

Well, toxic in my terms, then. As I said, our school is no where near as competitive, and my DD is lucky in that she rarely needs to study, and frequently does homework and preparation for science Olympiad during her weakest classes. However, despite this, the volume of busy work she has to complete is extreme- she regularly gets up at 5am or earlier to complete work, and she has friends who get up at 3am. And these are not kids who are at sports practice every afternoon.

We also have a very competitive Asan population. There are parents who take their elementary and middle school kids to the high school awards ceremony, "to motivate them." They love to quiz my kids on now they achieved their success (awards=success.) They attend the science Olympiad tournament awards ceremony (not the competition, which is actually interesting) years before their kids are old enough to join the team. (I'm not clear why this is- either "motivation" or figuring out which kids to befriend and emulate.) Sure, this behavior may be normal in many countries. In my world, it is toxic. So far, we have been lucky enough to co-exist with it, but for less naturally able kids, it is certainly stressful.

What do the kids think?

Depression and suicide rates are elevated in the Asian-American youth population.

They think "Winning!"

As Jon has just handily done, in making this post.

Our situation is much like cricket's by the way-- while it's a quiet/low profile place on the national scale, the competition/toxicity and ethnic mix here is very reminiscent of places like PAUSD and that in the article.

Fixing the problem isn't a school-side thing-- it can't be, because that isn't what drives some of it, and even if administrators could fix it, it'd be deep into custodial interference, because parents are the ones clamoring for a lot of the pressure, ironically.

Our SD has nearly 30% of students ID'ed as GT, and ironically, because of that, resources that would actually be needed/helpful for PG kiddos are in such high demand from overly-pushy parents of kids who don't really belong in them... that the 1% of kids in this town who are truly EG+ get left out in the cold unless they have pushy parents too.

You definitely learn who your friends are, that's for sure, when you live in an area like this and your kid is one that effortlessly makes the others look not so extraordinary by comparison. School administrators and teachers know dross from gold there-- but they've learned not to say so to parents who want their kids to have all of the "right" credentials.

IMMV, of course. But DD began making her own observations (mostly horror and concern) by the time she was 11 or 12, and seeing her very bright-to-moderately-gifted peers struggling under the load.

It was also made clear that local HS administrators hold a fairly high level of disdain-- poorly masked, too-- for "average" students. Hearing my DD's PSAT scores changed the landscape significantly re: seating her for the SAT with accommodations. I found that disgusting.

I have deep respect for music - it is about as important to me as math or other academics. In other words, I take it as seriously as many on this forum take acceleration and differentiation and placement issues. All kids should have the opportunity to learn and perform even if they do not value the privilege. However, it is best by middle school age, if they perform within their competence range so that they can enjoy the experience and be proud of their accomplishments and avoid disparagement from their upset peers. It is one thing for parents and students to suffer through some badly performed pieces but quite another to have every single piece in the concert butchered.

According to the 16 page letter linked from the article, the "right to squeak" policy addresses the instrumental music programs for 4th through 8th grade. I assumed the "right to squeak" is more relevant in middle school (6th - 8th) for the simple reason that you shouldn't be squeaking by then.

Our instrumental music program begins in 4th grade, but performance is not an issue at all because 4th grade is purely exploratory for all kids. There are two performances in 5th grade and every student fully participates and nobody expects a solid performance from these elementary students. However, the teacher also offers solos and duets and ensembles to any student who wants to accept the challenge and put in the extra practice. Many do and as a result, the concert has a mixture of good, tolerable and unpleasant performances.

In middle school, each grade has their own band and orchestra as well as a school-wide honor band and honor orchestra by teacher selection. Both music teachers adamantly want to group their classes by skill level but the administration won't budge because they want grouping by grade (age). Two or three times a year, all the band groups perform in one concert and all the orchestra groups perform in another concert. The honor and 8th grade groups generally provide the best performances in these combined concerts. There is no "right to squeak" law from the top so the teachers do have some discretion but everyone is encouraged to learn the few pieces - easy enough vis-a-vis their expected curriculum level if they only put in some practice. Some kids are lazy but they are socially savvy enough to only pretend play through sections that they did not practice. Some oblivious students, mostly in band and rarely in orchestra, exercise their right to squeak regularly and play wrong notes loudly to a different tempo and/or rhythm from the rest of the band - let's just say that these students are neither appreciated nor welcomed by their classmates. They would have been better off if they were only allowed to perform pieces that they can actually play. Many (all?) of these students do leave the band and/or orchestra programs by 8th grade if not by 7th grade. With particularly bad performances, the whole band group, not just the culprits, gets to suffer again during the next class in the form of a lecture/critique/writing analysis class work.

I agree that this sort of tiger-parenting approach is toxic, and have no doubt that the school in Plainsboro are toxic (though thanks to the member who made that fact depressingly clear).

At the same time, Asian parents are presumably well aware of the fact that top-tier colleges discriminate against their children. This is in addition to the arms-race insanity that's driven in large part by admissions committees that react positively to MORE extracurriculars and MORE AP classes and etc. So, to some extent, they're responding to an unjust situation.

My original messages weren't meant as an endorsement of pressure-cooker environments. I'm concerned that some of the solutions that have been proposed in New Jersey will actually make the pressure worse --- hence the paragraph in my first message about cutting homework loads and looking for a way to force the colleges to change admissions policies.

Palo Alto isn't the only district around here with a crazy-bad level of pressure. Forgive me if I've related this story here before, but it's on-point to this discussion: my daughter ended up in the hospital for a couple days over the Thanksgiving break a few years back. Her roommate was a kindergartner from Mountain View who'd had an appendectomy. This girl was doing homework in her bed while still hooked up to an IV line, DURING VACATION. She was expected to write a paragraph in her journal every day (in kindergarten!), do math worksheets, and etc. If that scene isn't a poster child for the kind of environment that drives teenagers to step in front of trains, I don't know what is.

Regarding it not being the school's job, etc--I disagree. Someone has to do something here, and it isn't going to be parents, generally speaking, because parents are deeply invested in their particular child making it even when they recognize the system is sick. One possible action that came up for this school system was strictly limiting the # of AP classes a student may take. It's an example of something schools could do, and these districts would be a great place to do it. I feel the same about the no-homework nights--there should be more. Another idea would be disallowing major projects over breaks. I'm sure we could come up with other ideas quite easily, though really the kids would know best. The change has to come first in the districts where things are the most competitive and everyone is going to Ivies, etc--like this one. Someone has to step out of the ring, and I think that's what's being attempted here. I don't know, again, if it is being done correctly. But the effort to do it at all is heartening to me. This is not about gifted programming, IMO.

Yes, but...college admissions. Limiting the number of AP classes will put the students at a disadvantage compared to students from all the other schools that don't limit AP classes. Admissions committees use industrial metrics to judge a candidate's fitness, and the formula includes the number of AP or other "rigorous" courses.

NOTE: I actually agree with you, and have long thought that the AP program as a whole has some serious deficiencies, including the expectation to teach yourself a large chunk of material over the summer.

It's just that, in the current environment, limiting AP classes may end up stressing out the parents even more, which will lead many to put even more pressure on the kids (who themselves may feel pressure regardless). For example, parents might push their kids into high-workload summer and/or online classes, such as those offered by Stanford's EPGY and its online high school. Some online classes are taught live via video link and run early in the morning to accommodate students in US high schools and students in Asia, meaning that the kids here could lose more sleep. The local high school can't control this kind of thing.

It's a complex, messy, ugly problem. Schools, parents, admissions committees, kids, and economic insecurity all play roles.

I think Val is right-- COLLEGES have to step up. Because UM is also right-- as long as there is a gold ring, parents are going to keep eyeing that prize.

I worry that limits to keep things sane will only make some parents that much crazier to push on stuff they still control, though.

It's interesting, the number of people in my DD's "elite" group of highly credentialed high school classmates (she didn't go to the local-local high school, by the way, but an online one)-- only one of them in her year in the top 10 wound up GOING to an Ivy or Elite college. Only two in the year before her. (Vassar and Princeton). These were her cohort-- all of them highly capable, btw, as one of them is apparently already going after a Rhodes now. ALL of them got into elite schools. ALL of them.


My point is that MOST of those students opted to choose the solid, but less flashy, route through college-- public universities with pretty elite honors programs, private schools which are less well-known, that sort of thing. Many of them got full merit scholarships at those institutions, and are thriving there.


I personally am now convinced that as hard as it is, the real solution lies in more parents waking up and smelling the coffee in this way-- saying, hey wait-a-minute, this is NUTS. There is a great college just an hour away, you don't have to live your life doing a high-wire act for ten years when you should be enjoying your youth, and you'll be able to find your people there and in grad school, and it won't saddle you with half a lifetime of debt servitude, either. Enjoy {activity-that-has-no-resume-value}, kiddo.

I knew that things were very, very warped when DD somehow gathered the notion in fifth grade that she needed, at just 8 years old, to know "what she planned to do with her life," and worried that adding a second musical instrument might "not look as good as the focus on {primary instrument}." Yowza. This is stuff that she was picking up on from her friends' families, who very much follow that grabbing-at-the-ring approach. I knew that we needed to reevaluate when we began thinking of missing activities as a trade off between parenting and discipline, and making her miss things that had resume potential. (Yeah-- ouch. No, we eventually chose that missing the line item was the right thing if she needed to be disciplined.)


Those are the kinds of things that parents really do think in places like this, though. The judgment from others is HARSH. Acceleration, even, is seen as push-parenting (possible abuse) by some, and as a coveted prize (how did you get them to do that? Who made the decision? What's the secret??) by others.

It isn't about gifted programming. That's merely one of the many tools in the over-zealous parenting arsenal. If the level of busy-work involved in my DD's high school classes was any indication, there are simply a lot of kids being PUSHED to do things that they are utterly unsuited for. She sees them in college, too. They live with continuous shame and guilt that they aren't living up to their parents' expectations of them. It's incredibly sad.

For the record, Jon's post pretty much says-- more tongue in cheek, to be sure-- what mine does.

My DD16 regularly talks to me about this. Some of her college friends despair of their chances to "make it" in life... as in, measure up to what they envision "success" looking like. They are frantic to do more-more-more-more-more. They have a competitive mindset, and they live in a sort of paranoid fervor of needing to "outcompete" everyone for-- well, The Prize.

Then there are those who realize that success doesn't look the same for everyone. There is a path that takes you through life that doesn't involve dollar signs, and it's a lot easier and for a lot of people, it makes you feel better along the way.

I know, about admissions. But if more than a few high-profile, super-competitive high schools started limiting, then the metric would start to fall apart. Of course, you might be right that it would then be gamed a different way.

I have been finding this story fascinating because that district came to "this" so much earlier and now, IMO, they are seeing the madness of "this" earlier, too. Of course, not everyone agrees.

I think the goal is to become a Rhodes Colossus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rhodes_Colossus

It's a prisoners' dilemma. Unless mutual non-escalation can be externally and effectively enforced, competition at all costs will persist because it's incentive compatible.

Ah Spaghetti, so sorry☹.

I think gifted humanities students are by far the most neglected, at least in our experience. My kids participate in STEM-type extracurricular activities because that is what is available. They have certainly enjoyed these activities, but were never given the opportunity for challenge or in-depth exploration of humanities areas. Who knows what would happen if schools paid equal attention to humanities? Oh, that's right- kids can read on their own at home.

Spaghetti, for what it's worth, some of the kids in our high school's science research program are doing social science research. I wonder if a solution could be negotiated that your daughter would enjoy. This program really has been freeing in letting my kid dive in deeply (very deeply) into something she's passionate about with guidance of a teacher and a mentor. I know it doesn't solve the problem with the other 7 classes on the schedule, but it's helped here.

It's not a zero sum game. People are going to compete for college admissions seats in some way. Why is doing so by taking more Advanced Placement classes worse than striving in extracurriculars (especially sports) or relying on parental connections? Students who do well in lots of AP classes are learning things. They can save themselves and their parents a lot of money if they use their credits to graduate from college in three years. I did.

Most students may not want to take 5 AP classes in one year, but capable students should not be prevented from doing so.

I am chuckling at your "right to squeak." DD has played violin for three years and is slack when it comes to practice. She is however a gifted musician who has close to perfect intonation (both when she sings and when she plays). She generally gets twice the results out of half the work and has earned a higher chair in the junior orchestra that she plays in despite other students working much harder. I am a little on the fence about this one, if knocking her down a peg would encourage her to practice more, I think I might be all for it

When I was in elementary school our choir was audition only. There were twenty spots ten boys and ten girls. It was when I originally realized that I might actually be an ok singer. I went on to participate in many other choirs that had required auditions. My best friend did not get picked and that was awkward. Honestly, I think children not being able to do things is fine. Not everyone meets requirements for a school's gifted program in elementary school and that is ok. Some people are just musically talented and some are not.

if it were me, I would not want to stand out in a highly talented orchestra by playing wrong notes with wrong timing and ruining the whole performance because I wanted to exercise my "right to squeak". I would feel worried about ruining the hard work of other talented and hard working kids by screwing up their good performance with my incompetence. I also don't want to feel unwelcome in a place that I do not belong in. There is a place for everyone in this world and not all of us need to be in a public performance of a school orchestra.

I think that is part of the reasoning behind requiring some minimal competence on a piece. When everyone does some minimal practice, the whole band or orchestra is elevated and there is group pride. There are district-wide bands and orchestras at both middle and high school levels and the support for them stems partly from the results observed at individual school bands and orchestras over the decades - when one or more students earn spots in these, their classmates are motivated to improve as well. Of course, I am in a district of well over 100,000 students with a couple of dozen middle schools alone.

I think that is partly why a lot more 6th graders are caught doing this and many of them leave by the next year.

DD attends a middle school with multiple bands at multiple levels. You have to test in to the next level band, but there are no requirements for individual pieces. I will say it again--I completely oppose restricting music education to certain students. 100% against. I am completely fine with ensembles at different levels, but everyone who wants to particpate should have the right to do so. As a matter of fact, I wish sports were run this way as well, with casual intramural sports available to kids who just want to play for fun. Kids like DD who are not really athletic (nor inclined to focus on sports) but enjoy playing team sports for fun have no good outlet when team rec sports age out around 12. This type of thing used to exist. Why does every darn thing have to be so serious? I support in-depth programs for those with the interest and dedication, but let the rest of the kids dabble and enjoy. You actually don't know who may eventually emerge as devoted in the long run. I have a child who is not musically gifted in the typical sense but who shows an intriguingly creative response to music and, more than that, an interest and love (she will sit and listen to a whole album on headphones with deep concentration) that may yet keep her playing long past the time when natural technical talents give up their instruments. (ETA: FWIW, DD practices religiously, so she would certainly pass any test on her musical pieces...this is not sour grapes. ;))

I don't think anyone assumes it's sour grapes and there must certainly be parents who agree with you that kids should always be allowed to perform every piece with their band or orchestra - otherwise why would the district in the original post institue a mandatory "right to squeak" ?

By the way, kudos to your DD for practicing religiously. I really wish I can say the same for DD and DS - they obviously do practice but they successfully skate by too often. That is one reason why this "right to squeak" horrifies me. Interestingly, I am speaking from the perspective of a parent of a student who was cut from a piece (actually about 1/2 of one piece). DS is the best player (on his instrument) in his grade at school and was invited to join the school honors group (for 7th & 8th graders) at the beginning of 6th grade. Just prior to their first concert of the year, I happened to look over his music and noticed that about 1/2 of one piece was marked "rest". It was a difficult section but not something he couldn't have performed with a moderate amount of practice. He explained that the group hadn't had a lot of time to work on that piece together during practice and he forgot to put in the time to get it right so after the last rehearsal the teacher told him (and other unprepared kids) to not play that section. It made complete sense to DS (and me) and he has been more vigilant about keeping track of music for upcoming performances. I think he would have been stressed and embarrassed if he had been expected to fumble through the section and likely mess up the piece for the other students.

I think music is one of those areas that some people take seriously and others don't or perhaps can't even see why. It's good that people disagree - otherwise, it gets boring pretty fast. For example, I don't take sports seriously at all and I know there are people ready to wrestle me to the ground over that.

We are in a district that actually requires music education for every single student in elementary and middle school. Once you are in high school, only one year is required. However, in middle school, it is up to the band and orchestra teachers to listen to a student play before letting him into an instrumental music class (divided by grade level) unless the students have participated in an elementary school band or orchestra in our district. All other students have two choices: they may register for chorus if they want to sing; otherwise they register for world music if they like to read about and listen to music instead. The one thing I do not like about our system is that a student can be potentially shut out from instrumental music (other than guitar or keyboard in high school) by 6th grade unless they make an effort. For example, DD has a classmate who asked the teacher for help to learn an instrument and he practiced regularly and was let into the 7th grade class the following fall. If our school grouped by skill rather than grade, then there could potentially be a beginning class that could be joined by any grade level.

I guess I might not feel as strongly about performance being up to snuff in an auditioned group. But it comes down again to my feeling that everyone who wants to sing or play music ought to be allowed to. I don't like your district's system. DD (6th) just took up an instrument this year...she didn't want to previously, and I feel this was actually the right time for her. I have not had to bug her to practice at all. Band is fun and rewarding, and she is mature enough to have picked up her instrument easily and met with success. She was in chorus (no audition) before, and although she does not sing well and they practiced minimally, I think it prepared her nicely for this step up.

I have to say, as a middle of the road player in a large band, I would just "fake it" when I knew I didn't have a section mastered.

My child is pretty good and plays viola in the 7th grade orchestra. (Apparently viola is not that competitive- there are a million cellos and violins but only a few violas). He was named first chair of the 10 violas and invited to be in a special quartet, run by the conductor. (he is the only hearing impaired kid in the orchestra!).
The two violins and 1 cello were phenomenal- they were all Chinese-American, practiced at least 3 hours a day (their moms told me), and have played since age 4. My son is pretty good and was clearly the weakest player, although he got a lot better.
I can see what they are saying- orchestra in our area is super, super competitive and the kids/parents are not always very nice. My son learned a lot and would do it again BUT he hated being around the other kids and their parents, who were freakishly, bizarrely competitive and often jerks...

This rings so true to me and my DD is only 5!

In our district, high school orchestras have a few levels. The higher levels are audition-based, and the lowest level is for anyone who wants to play music. In middle school and elementary school, there is just one orchestra for everyone, so the very advanced players go to youth orchestras elsewhere (such as those offered by professional orchestras and university-based youth orchestras).

It's like math. Of course everyone who wants to learn should have the opportunity. But if there is only one level of offering, either the best students will seek resources elsewhere, or the slowest students are left behind. Parents on this forum would be very frustrated if their kids are in a school where all kids have to learn math at the same pace. But this is the same if all kids have to be in the same orchestra learning the same pieces. My two kids are both awesome musicians and they have both felt that their elementary and middle school orchestras were really boring. The key is to make sure that kids at all levels can learn and can be challenged. I see this the same way whether we talk about music, math or sports.

This has been roughly the story of DD's life in a lot of different extracurriculars, actually. It's exactly what comes of living in a place like the one described in the OP, or in Palo Alto, etc. There are a distressing number of such places in the United States now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So this isn't really about earnings.

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

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

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

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

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

I almost spit up my drink because there is so much truth in that statement. Poor Brown!

I read the local news coverage on the music program and it's my understanding that ALL students grade 4-8 in ALL musical ensembles (which included large bands and orchestras for all comers as well as smaller auditioned groups) were being asked to audition each piece for each concert. In other words, your child who took up violin 2 months ago and joined general "orchestra" would have to sit out a concert if he/she was not up to snuff. I get the impression this was happening because the general "orchestra" had a lot of high-level players already by grades 4 and 5 due to parents beginning private lessons early, and was largely able to play hard pieces. So, parental pressure and possibly music teacher preference was to sit out the kids who can't keep up. (Let's not let the amateurs "spoil" what the rest of our advanced kids can do...) But tell me, where do those kids go if they or their parents didn't feel like starting Suzuki at 3 and they now want to play in a large group? I may have this wrong. I had to read between the lines somewhat. There was also some discussion of elimination of a chamber music group that I could not quite follow. ETA: Apparently the chamber music practice was moved to after school, causing objections. Also, in the district, all students take choir, orchestra, or band in upper elementary.

I can see where the superintendent is coming from. Something tells me there is a happy medium here. We can go from requiring all kids to try out to not having any place for the advanced kids to shine.

My district has an excellent music program. All kids are required to take music (band, orchestra, choir) in 4-6th grades. And in these grades there is usually only one ensemble but the more advanced kids might have a solo. And there is district honors & state honors programs which many of the top kids make. In higher grades there are levels of band/orchestra/choir. Everyone who is in band/orchestra/choir get to perform at all concerts. Band takes in anyone who wants even if they have never played an instrument before (even in H.S.). But you do have to try out to get first chair, or into the higher level band.

Our district is somewhat similar. The first two years of ensemble music, there is just one orchestra and one band for everyone. Advanced kids often either pick up another instrument, or go to an ensemble outside of school. In later grades there are multiple ensembles catering to students at different levels. But within each ensemble, all kids can play all pieces (unless one's instrument is not needed in a piece, of course).

Private lessons and early start definitely give a kid an advantage. It's the same with parents who read to their babies, find "academically oriented" preschools, help with homework, get private tutors, or send kids to Philips Exeter instead of the public high school down the street.

I want to say that the obvious answer is to just set up another orchestra for the kids who started playing "late" at ages 8 or 9. But, that's not the real problem, is it?

On the one hand, I can see the point made by the Suzuki-at-age-3 parents. On the other hand...Suzuki at age 3? I wonder how many of this stuff is designed around IVY LEAGUE SCHOOL! application fodder for fulfilling the "pointy-yet-all-around-achiever" requirement.

And yet, competition for top-tier schools is insane and discriminatory in a large number of ways (legacies, athletes, children of the powerful and famous, minorities, foreign/out-of-state students who pay much more at public colleges, big-donor kids, famous kids...), so parents without one of these hooks are probably trying to help their kids get an advantage (as defined by the parents). And the economy is a mess, so people are stressed. Add it up and you get behavior akin to a siege mentality.

Ick. Personally, I prefer the kind of system where everyone takes ONE exam which is the SAME exam administered at the SAME TIME and university admissions are driven by points on said exam. Prince William had to get enough points on his A-levels to get into his desired program at St. Andrews, and that was that.

But a system like that would be way too transparent for the United States and way too impervious to gaming and we can't have that, because if we did, we couldn't discriminate have a "diverse" student body, so we need to make up reasons about how transparent admissions systems are anathema to American education.

And so we pile on the homework and the activities and the pressure, starting at age 3 in some cases, and wonder why 15-year-olds get inspired to step in front of trains. And when people like me make this complaint, we're seen as making trouble or being too cynical. And when another teenager kills himself, the "solution" is to bring in "counselors" and "the right to squeak." No one seems to want to address the real, fundamental problems here, which all derive from pervasive and very serious inequality in American society (including college admissions).

This is absolutely true.

Actually this is something that many people have mentioned. parents all want to give their kids a leg up. Middle class/upper middle class parents do so by helping their kids jump through every hoop the college admissions office prepares. Whereas kids from rich families or legacy kids just walk around the hoops and get in.

But also want to add that my daughter did not start Suzuki at age 3. She started piano and violin at age 5.5, upon strong request from herself. (She had been bugging me for lessons since she was 4.) Then she got in our community middle school orchestra in 1st grade. She got in our community advanced middle school orchestra in 2nd grade. She got in our state middle school orchestra at 3rd grade. Instrumental music starts at her school in 5th grade, and she had been begging me to ask the school to let her be exempted. But of course the school said no. So she sits there and watches the teacher tells the other kids "this is a bow, and this is how you hold a violin." So there is a real need for differentiation in music, the trick is always about the balance.

But there are disadvantages to that one test system as well. Countries like Korea that use that system have even higher levels of teenager suicide than the US. The stress put on testing for that one test becomes the most important thing for most teenagers. And when they fail their one chance? And doing well on one test isn't really a good indicator for how well a student will do in college. And what to those kids who are diligent, but don't do so well on standardized tests? (I have one of those who only has one more semester of college.)

The A level's aren't exactly the same as ONE test taken at ONE time. You do get to specialize in subjects, and while they are only given once a year you can re-take them the next year. They are more like HUGE final exams more than college admissions tests.

I do realize the US System needs a better system. But I don't think making college based on one test a good one.

The choice seems to be get stressed about an exam you'll be taking in 6-9 months, with a complete understanding of the university admissions requirements vs. constant stress from an age as early as 5 coupled with a college admissions process that's opaque . The lack of transparency adds to the problem here.

I'll take the A-level/Irish Leaving Cert./French Bac./etc. approach any day over that. No need for resume-building activities, and no need to be pointy and well-rounded at the same time. Just one exam (well, series of exams). Everyone takes the same one, and everyone is held to the same standards (though the UK seems to have started an interview process; I don't know a lot about it, but am not sure if it's a good idea?).

Life involves stress. There's no way around that and no way around exam stress and college admissions stress. But that doesn't mean that we have to go out of our way to pretend we're being meritocratic when we're not. As you noted, in other countries, you can take the exit exam again. I know a lot of people who did this. In Europe, it's not a big deal. If it is in other countries, that's a societal problem, not a problem with the admissions system.

Saying this clearly: a huge driver of the pressure in this country is the opaque and discriminatory system used by college admissions committees and the pervasive inequality in our society.

A perfectly normal and resaonable system, IMO, and one I support. Isn't this part of why we have first, second, and third parts? (Not sure how common third parts are, but I seem to recall third sections in my band.) I also support what we have where I live--one level of musical group in elementary (4 and 5) with multiple levels in middle school. You audition for higher-level ensembles. I suppose it's possible some kids are asked not to play in some of these at times if not prepared (never heard ofit, but could be). But there is always some kind of performance opportunity for anyone who wants to play or sing.

Trust me, there are oodles of higher-level music opportunities in the area in question. If talented kids want opportunities, they have them.

The British system I could get behind. The British system (don't know anything about French & Irish) is more like getting to choose what AP Classes (3-5) you are interested in after you pass a basic H.S level (the GCSE's). Then taking these classes for 2 years, taking standardized tests on them. University admission is only based on the A level results, you could compare this more to getting in based only on your AP Tests grades.

But many Asian countries it's ONE exam for everyone on ONE day, and you have ONE shot at it. You don't make the cut you don't go to university. Student are in cram school for that one test from the time they are very very young. They are just as stressed at US students perhaps maybe more. Just making entrance the result of a single test doesn't make it less stressful for the kids. It's not just stress for one year, it's stress for most of childhood.

Yes, I agree with you completely about the one shot/cram school thing.

The Irish system is like the UK one, except that students study 6 subjects, so they aren't as specialized as their counterparts in the UK. The Bac is somewhat more diversified, but has three basic tracks (science, social science & economics, and what we'd probably call humanities). The Swiss universities used to let anyone who passed the exam enroll in any course of study (well, I'm pretty sure you had to have taken tests in the required subject areas).

Switzerland can be libertarian in some ways, and this was one of them. The idea was, "You can enroll in medical school if you want to, but you have to pass to continue." So their various university courses would lose a lot of people after first year, but you could try if you wanted to. I like that system. I'm not sure if they still operate that way. Increasing population may have forced them to have entry requirements, but either way, it's all based on exam results.

That's how I kind of feel. I bet that area has a very competitive youth orchestra or two.

As for Suzuki method, unfortunately, it has become a tool for resume building for preschool admission that would get you into the right private K-12 school that sends dozens of kids into HYPS.

I've mentioned this before but I don't know any kids who got into HYPS because of musical accomplishments. I mean, I suppose if your child wins a major international competition or is giving concerns around the world, that's one thing but otherwise, I don't think it can really tip the scale. Sport, on the other hand, can be a huge factor. If you truly want your child to get into an ivy, instead of doing Suzuki violin, they should try out for as many sports as they can and hire a private coach or two. Some families pay $3000 a month to their tennis, golf, or whatever else coach PER child not because they believe their child has the potential to turn pro but because they know how to play the college admission game.

It's insanity.

Many if not most of the accomplished classical musicians who get into HYPS are Asian-Americans who also have great grades and test scores, so it will be difficult to point to applicants who got in primarily because of music. That said, the daughters of the Tiger Mother,who were famously pushed in music, both went to Harvard http://harvardmagazine.com/2015/07/the-tiger-daughter-intact . The year I got into Harvard, the other classmate to do so was a Korean-American whose primary EC was piano. The following year, a Chinese-American violin virtuoso got in from my high school. He is now an orchestra and opera conductor. They had good grades and test scores, too.

Now you are getting into politics. Because of differing levels of ability and motivation, as well as luck, there will always be inequality, and attempts to reduce it usually do more harm than good IMO.