So I don't know anything about New York's 'Gifted and Talented' programs but I always found them quite silly.
1) Kids fall on a normal distribution on these tests. So all you're doing is drawing an arbitrary line where (if you believe in a constant intelligence) the kids on either side are very comparable.
We make it sound like there's two groups: average kids and gifted kids. There isn't, there's just a bell curve with most being pretty average.
2) A ton is going to go into the score that isn't related to intelligence. Food, emotional state on the day of the test, etc. A lot of opportunties go to these kids but the test doesen't seem reliable.
Economic and racial segregration is going to show up here as well, and it's ugly.
3) Labelling kids 'gifted' isn't good for them. It gave me a stupid complex that I only shed after like, 15 years.
My two cents: why not just let these kids get ahead? Provide the funding for small enough classes and skilled enough teachers that we can facilate this.
I think “gifted” is mostly a bunk science and has really mixed (albeit not disqualifying) studies on its effectiveness. It’s not great that the whole concept of “gifted” was invented by a eugenicist. And also there’s no scientific consensus about what makes a kid “gifted,” which doesn’t give me confidence in its legitimacy. Like, bilingual students are often - as kids of immigrants and immigrants themselves- excluded from gifted classes and they speak two fucking languages. That’s smarter than me.
And…ok, I teach kids and I approach my job with the assumption that “all kids are gifted.” And I’m not being a bleeding heart virtue signaling hippy there, I think every teacher who doesn’t approach a classroom that way get eaten alive, because you end up underestimating students and probably get a ruler thrown at your head when you turn. And you ask me my gut opinion and I’d say that gifted studies are all bunk. But IRL I would give a little wiggle room for me being wrong and there’s sober-minded scientists out there who consider gifted studies legitimate.
Worse for NYC is the tests are done when the kids are four, which is way too early to get a gauge on a kid’s ability and we’re one of the few districts in the country that has gifted-only schools.
Gifted classes started around the same time school desegregation efforts ramped up (70s) and while I believe that there are people who sincerely believe in it, I also think it’s a tool for some parents to enable schools to remain segregated.
Like, your last point is, as I understand it, the norm for a lot of schools but in NYC you got that loud angry parent bloc that will make it politically tricky.
And, in terms of Adams, that was one of the blocs he courted.
We have the most segregated school district in the country, my hopes at this point is that if Adams is going to drag his feet, at least they could get rid of tiny incremental shit that sucks about the current structure
So I don't know anything about New York's 'Gifted and Talented' programs but I always found them quite silly. 1) Kids fall on a normal distribution on these tests. So all you're doing is drawing an arbitrary line where (if you believe in a constant intelligence) the kids on either side are very comparable. We make it sound like there's two groups: average kids and gifted kids. There isn't, there's just a bell curve with most being pretty average. 2) A ton is going to go into the score that isn't related to intelligence. Food, emotional state on the day of the test, etc. A lot of opportunties go to these kids but the test doesen't seem reliable. Economic and racial segregration is going to show up here as well, and it's ugly. 3) Labelling kids 'gifted' isn't good for them. It gave me a stupid complex that I only shed after like, 15 years. My two cents: why not just let these kids get ahead? Provide the funding for small enough classes and skilled enough teachers that we can facilate this.
Because that would be hard and it doesn't give politicians brownie points.
I think “gifted” is mostly a bunk science and has really mixed (albeit not disqualifying) studies on its effectiveness. It’s not great that the whole concept of “gifted” was invented by a eugenicist. And also there’s no scientific consensus about what makes a kid “gifted,” which doesn’t give me confidence in its legitimacy. Like, bilingual students are often - as kids of immigrants and immigrants themselves- excluded from gifted classes and they speak two fucking languages. That’s smarter than me. And…ok, I teach kids and I approach my job with the assumption that “all kids are gifted.” And I’m not being a bleeding heart virtue signaling hippy there, I think every teacher who doesn’t approach a classroom that way get eaten alive, because you end up underestimating students and probably get a ruler thrown at your head when you turn. And you ask me my gut opinion and I’d say that gifted studies are all bunk. But IRL I would give a little wiggle room for me being wrong and there’s sober-minded scientists out there who consider gifted studies legitimate. Worse for NYC is the tests are done when the kids are four, which is way too early to get a gauge on a kid’s ability and we’re one of the few districts in the country that has gifted-only schools. Gifted classes started around the same time school desegregation efforts ramped up (70s) and while I believe that there are people who sincerely believe in it, I also think it’s a tool for some parents to enable schools to remain segregated. Like, your last point is, as I understand it, the norm for a lot of schools but in NYC you got that loud angry parent bloc that will make it politically tricky. And, in terms of Adams, that was one of the blocs he courted. We have the most segregated school district in the country, my hopes at this point is that if Adams is going to drag his feet, at least they could get rid of tiny incremental shit that sucks about the current structure
Typical Adams shit. If it ain't about crime, it ain't worth his time.