Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Gifted, Talented and Separated (NYC)

I don't really care about high tax rates so much if the basics are there for me and everyone else. But, you know, I'm a bit of a socialist. So there's that.

I think it's been discussed here before, but one thing that's quite relevant when discussing Finland is that they don't have private schools.

I've heard all sorts of things because my child is in a GT magnet that is largely white and Asian contained within a largely black school. Many people dislike the model and are vocal about it. My opinion is that her school simply makes these inequalities rather more starkly visible, which makes people uncomfortable. But...they're there anyway. Sending your child to a private school or locating yourself in an affluent school zone so you don't have to look the issue of racial/socioeconomic inequality in the face isn't really any more defensible than sending your child to a magnet like DD's. At DD's school, at least the advantaged parents may be contributing to improving education for the poorer kids because, as a matter of logistics, their involvement with the school will benefit the gen ed students to some degree. I don't see that my friends who have kids at privates or the "good" schools are doing anything for these kids.

I do see some benefits from the GT magnet to the general ed population at DD's school. The question is whether the downside (psychological effects must exist when kids can very clearly see that, in this case, the gen ed students are 95% black and the GT students are probably 85% white/Asian) negates those plusses.

But then we can't forget the benefits to kids like my DD. We have lots of cultural capital and are well-educated, but lower-income (somewhat by choice). There are a lot of kids in the magnet like us--their parents are bright and culturally advantaged but they are zoned for poor and faltering schools due to family income. The magnet provides an out for kids whose parents don't have other options. I imagine this is very similar at the NYC school in the article.

One thing I do think is important is GT screening for everyone. This is not done in my district. You have to be nominated by a teacher to begin testing at all. (I assume you can also get testing via squeaky-wheel advocacy, but that's more likely to be the realm of privileged parents.)

I only mention Finland because they start schooling fairly late. Without formal 3Rs prior to 7, kids appear to do fine. It seems to me that for example starting math prior to 7 or 8 has a chance to do more harm than good if a child's related metaskills and abstract thinking aren't there yet.

Utramarina, we are in a very similar magnet. The school makes a point of bringing best practices from the magnet side into the regular classroom. There are programs like "reading buddies" where gifted kids volunteer to help with reading in lower classes. The success of the school and the non-magnet students have all improved signficantly over time since the magnet program started a few years ago.

Sorry, it was Norway I meant and the actual rate there runs between 41 and 45%. Apologies.

I think that the problem with socialism is that without cultural homogeneity (I'm looking at you Denmark), you have trouble past Dunbar's number.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_Number

DD's school also uses reading buddies. Its test scores have improved since the magnet came in--but here's the catch: the scores are only reported in the aggregate. So, who knows if the gen ed kids' scores are going up.


This is obviously not okay. In fact, it's bizarre. They call it GT, but more than 50% of the school is in it?

AFAIK, you can't fully game the system by parental pushing in our district...but I just may not have heard about it. You can request that your child be retested, but I don't think they make any exceptions as far as the cutoff goes...except that they do have an "alternate assessment" pathway meant to up representation of poor kids. (But it's like 90th% instead of 99th, or something. I think.)

I have a few observations:

1. One is GT programs in general. If schools simply taught kids at a level appropriate to their needs, there would be no need for GT programs.

2. Okay, so GT programs exist right now. Let's talk about that: these programs are supposed to serve gifted kids, not kids who are bright and get As. Gifted kids often don't get all As and their learning needs are very different from those of the general population. Putting non-gifted kids into these programs dilutes or destroys their ability to help the kids they're supposed to serve.

3. Personally, I'm tired of these articles that dump blame on gifted programs. I'm sorry if the diversity isn't what some people want, but it's not the fault of the kids who passed the test. They didn't write it. They just took it. Why are they always the first ones to be dumped on ("They're all white /Asian!") or punished ("Let's get rid of that elitist program!")?

There are so many ways that this situation could be handled (pacing based on ability and no gifted programs, or gifted programs in each school that pull from the top 2% of that school, etc. etc.). Personally, I think that people (especially educators) don't want to admit that some kids are just better at learning than others, and until that changes, so will the status quo and all this handwringing.

An enormous percentage of the population isn't cognitively gifted, and allowing educators to make themselves feel better by pretending that half the class can be in a gifted program is lying, and everyone knows it. I suppose this is what happens when status is the most important issue in an school system.

The problem is that in the minds of many people, gifted = unearned status.

Who was the moron who decided that "gifted" was a way to describe this particular cohort of people?

That's half the problem right here.

Of course everyone wants their children to be "gifted"!

Gifted = better = Winning!

Hmmm. Reading with interest and curiosity.

It seems to be different here. I'd have to research stats, but the racial percentages in special programs look like they reflect the percentages in the general population (I could be totally wrong - I'm just noting what I see from my little corner).

Ironically the two kids from DD's class who made the gifted math pull out are Caucasian (my DD) and African (her gifted classmate).

There isn't GT testing for everyone (I had to push to get DD tested). Not sure if her classmate was tested either or simply nominated because of above-grade level performance (she's very high achieving - she's mature and focused, unlike my DD).

As for the numbers of kids who make it in to the different programs, I couldn't tell you... although a South Asian mom friend of mine whose daughter made it into the language GT pull-out said that they had to split the kids into two half-year groups because there were so many who made it in... too many for all the kids to be in for the entire year. Worth noting is that funding and space is limited - for example my daughter's math program takes only 3 or 4 kids per school. That could mean there were only 8-10 language kids who made it. Who knows.

Again, my experience is limited. We're in a language immersion / Montessori school, so the LI kids who aren't white likely aren't ESL either, or they're talented with language, which sometimes enables self-advocacy and improves test scores. Mind you, there is a girl on our street (South Asian) who is not in language immersion, and she's in both the math and science gifted programs.

It would be interesting, actually, to compare my observations with local stats. Must look into that...

The usage has been around a while:

But yeah, problematic. Here in Scotland we aren't supposed to use the g-word; we have to say "more able" instead. But this is a bit daft (more able than whom?)

I suppose it was at some point liked because it can be read as emphasising that someone who is gifted is not better, or harder working (necessarily), or more deserving than someone else; they have been lucky enough to be given a gift. Unfortunately gifts produce envy.