Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion A bone-headed NY Times editorial

I read the NY Times because of the quality of the journalism. While the paper is left-leaning, the quality overcomes the bias. However the editorials are a completely different matter.

Today's editorial is regarding the NY exam schools (Stuyvesant et al), which admit students based upon performance of an admission exam. The study materials for the exam are widely available and free. However, the "mix" of the students is not what some groups would like. So do those groups try to get students to work harder so they can perform better on the exam? Nope. This being 21st century America, they instead decided to sue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/o...-the-federal-radar.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

The editorial mentions that the Department of Education decided to investigate the exam schools. And the NY Times editorial hopes that the investigation will force the exam schools to modify their admission criteria.

Does merit matter anymore in the US?

PS: Several years ago, I was part of a group that was invited to visit the New York Times. Jill Abramson gave us a lengthy presentation. Afterwards, the reaction from my group (business executives from several industries) was that she had an ivory tower mentality, out of touch with how the real world actually worked. Jill is now executive editor, and the New York times now unfortunately reflects her view.

It says


If such a complaint is well-founded, then sueing doesn't seem an unreasonable response. Have you looked at this "devastating analysis"?

What do you when measures of intellectual merit, such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (now just the "SAT"), IQ tests, and the SHSAT (the test used for admission to NYC public schools) exhibit large group differences? I say accept the reality that there *are* large group differences and stop mandating equal results by group (as NCLB does). Most people want to avoid the question.

The summary of the complaint and the full complaint are available here:

http://www.naacpldf.org/press-relea...and-center-law-and-social-justice-medgar

http://www.naacpldf.org/files/case_issue/Specialized%20High%20Schools%20Complaint.pdf

The gist of the complaint seems to be that there is no "equality of outcome", and therefore the test must be invalid. I don't buy into the assertion that the difference is due to pricey test prep in richer households. I remember reading somewhere that over 40% of Stuyvesant students receive free or reduced priced lunches.

In other posts, I have mentioned that we have not accelerated our kids, in part because we are fortunate enough to live in a town with an outstanding public school system. We do not live in New York, but schools like Stuy offer the opportunity for highly intelligent children to learn together in a single school. And they do this without the cost of an expensive private school education, or having to live in expensive towns that are closely associated with most of the excellent public schools.

Apple. Fall. Tree.

I think there would be under-representation without test prep, for the reason I mentioned earlier, but the article

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/27/e...ons-test-highlights-a-racial-divide.html
For Asians, School Tests Are Vital Steppingstones
By KYLE SPENCER
New York Times
October 26, 2012

suggests that test prep priced at levels that immigrant Asians can afford does contribute to Asian over-representation at the NYC schools. I don't see hard work being rewarded as a problem.

Seems like this is another one of those very complex questions that's being reduced to black and white nuclear-option alternatives.

Some individuals are smarter than others. That's just how it is. But that doesn't mean that aggressive test prep doesn't give wealthier kids an edge. I've seen lots of stories about people who spend thousands of dollars over the course of years on prepping their kids for these exams. Where does that leave you if you can't pony up the cash? There is no way my family could have afforded that kind test prep for me.

IMO, any entrance exam to a public high school should be given on even ground. Outcomes will differ, but everyone should start from an equal footing. In other words, they should be using an exam that people can't prep for.

But more importantly, the real problem is that New York City needs more schools for gifted kids. As the system stands right now, it pits people against one another with predictable results: the parents of hyper-prepped, stressed out upper middle class teenagers are outcompeting the parents of bright low income kids who see themselves as having no recourse but to sue. Each side has its own nuclear option. What they really need is to designate more schools are being for gifted students. It's not like they'd have to build new ones. They'd just have to do a bit of shuffling.

Val,

I want to focus on one part of your fine post:


I imagine that would be quite difficult to do. Something that is easier and is likely to address part of the problem is to simply adjust for household income.

This is a bit off (my own!) topic, but I am currently reading Charles Murray's Real Education. What I have read so far doesn't address group differences, but it agrees with you that NCLB has been a disaster at both ends of the IQ distribution.