Gifted Issues Discussion homepage

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.