Is it possible that the reason the programs had to be concentrated is because most NYC elementary schools no longer have enough families in them that value education to constitute a “gifted” class? The state of things in the average NYC public school is fairly dire and almost all of them outside the wealthiest few neighborhoods are limited to people who don’t have the means to move or pay private school tuition, and those who don’t really care if their kids learn to read or not.
What is your understanding of why this is not currently done?
What is valued is the reputation of being the “best” They don’t really particularly care what makes it the best.
They want to appropriate the the benefits of that reputation, built on student body using a highly selective process, to students that would not be selected using that process. If they were merely interested in what happened inside the school, they could build another one and use whatever criteria they want to populate the school but they want the tjhhst reputation.
I went to elementary school in predominantly black/hispanic neighborhoods. These were pretty poor neighborhoods (there were large piles of rubble where building ought to be). Our GT program didn’t start until 3rd grade. The GT class was predominantly black/hispanic, my GT classmates were mostly bright enough to benefit from the accelerated coursework. They were reasonably studious and hard working. Even if the they do not have the same focus on academics as asians, most poor black and hispanic families value education to a normal degree, they can produce enough kids that can meet the reasonably low bar necessary to benefit form a GT environment.
Generally speaking…I don’t think black and hispanic families value education any less than similarly situated white families. I don’t think their kids study any less than similarly situated white kids.
Once again generally speaking… I don’t think most of them worked as hard as the asian kids.
I think there are enough kids to fill one or two GT classes at each grade but a GT program has overhead and having a GT program at every school costs more money than pooling all the kids to a central location.
It’s not like there aren’t promising black and hispanic students. Some of the most exclusive private schools in NYC are 10% black. When I was a kid those schools were 100% white. These private school scout out and cherrypick the top black prospects. I don’t know if a more robust GT program would lead to more black kids at stuy but I believe it would lead to better educations for the black kids in the city generally to have local GT programs.
It sure beats being Uyghur.
Yes, there is.
I think America is a little unusual, as from what I hear there is a lot more racism against black people than against other races. But I’m sure it also has the common sort of racism you’ve described.
Don’t think I’ve ever seen them try. They just argue from results: “if Hispanics are doing worse in any way then it must be due to racism”.
It makes sense. The GT program would benefit a larger number of students than the selective schools, too. And perhaps the bar for qualifying should depend on school, not be uniform across the city, because any kids who are significantly above the general standard in a school would benefit from more advanced classes.
Why is this?
(And off topic, but why were there piles of rubble in NYC? It wasn’t bombed in the war.)
Yes, anti-black racism is a special form of racism. This is the primary reason I try to frame the affirmative action debate juxtaposing poor asians immigrants with poor hispanic immigrants, hispanics benefit as much if not more from affirmative action than blacks. I favor some form of reparations for slavery but this half assed attempt to try to balance the books with affirmative action entirely at the expense of asians is not something I can support.
That is more or less how the GT program used to work. The GT students in the rich white neighborhood were probably more academically advanced than the GT students in poor black neighborhoods. But they learned from the same book.
I think it is because immigrants, particularly asian immigrants place more of an emphasis on education. I don’t have proof that poor asian immigrants study harder than poor blacks or hispanics but here is a study showing that asians study harder than whites.
https://www.pnas.org/content/111/23/8416
I’m not sure, I was a kid. But I think these buildings got condemned, then abandoned by the owners, then demolished by the city and they took their time removing the rubble because they were in out of the way places, sort of between neighborhoods or by the train tracks.
I teach in a selective government high school but I’ve taught in many sorts of schools before.
Teachers and schools very often have to deal with issues that are caused by, and should be dealt with at, other levels of society. We are there to do our best to accommodate students of all backgrounds and ability levels but if you want all kids to have a chance to reach their potential it’s too late to fix everything at the school level.
It’s science really, and conservative (eek) and liberal (hmmm) and leftist values, just not corporate, individualist shit. Are families economically stable, do they have a supportive community around them, is good early childhood education available, are they fed and clothed, do parents have time to spend with their kids, is education valued as an inherent good, do children feel someone in their life values them and wants them to succeed (scary how low the % of this can be in some areas).
Work towards fixing that stuff (another thread entirely) and the socio-ecomic and racial issues will start to become less of an issue.
Oh and the racism is real - if you know that as a member of your race you are less likely to succeed in professional careers, it’s rational to not try as hard to strive for those careers.
Racism is insidious, particularly institutional racism.
Maybe they wouldn’t be so bored if they spent their time helping their classmates…
Joao Hamalainen, 17, studies in one of Helsinki’s elite upper secondary school, the Helsinki Normal Lyceum (Most students enter with a Grade Point Average of 9.0 upon 10).
Of his first nine years of school-life, he said: “Being with classmates of different abilities guided me more. For subjects I am better at, I learned by helping my classmates.”
Having more capable students help other students is a decent classroom management tool and it’s tempting to pretend it helps everyone but really most of the time the more capable students would be better off doing something new at their level.
That’s not to say you can’t have differentiated learning within a class but having the smart kids help the slower kids is not differentiation. And I am not saying students should never help each other or even rarely help each other.
“Better off” is a very vague term. How are you defining it?
I’m not talking about classroom management, mostly, either, but learning outcomes.
What I do know is that the research indicates that peer mentors get tangible benefits from peer tutoring. Not excessive amounts, but measurable. This isn’t all new research, either, some of it was done in the 80s. Pedagogical methodologies like active learning and Lernen durch Lehren/Learning by Teaching all have a proven track record with solid science behind them.
Of course there are benefits to teaching others.
We train doctors and nurses using the “See One, Do One, Teach One” method to teach these professionals and to reinforce the things they are taught.
I don’t know how much benefit a kid that is ready to do calculus gets from helping his classmates understand algebra. Sure it would reinforce these things but as your cite notes: “the magnitude of these gains is often underwhelming”
If you have a kid that is only a bit ahead of their peers teaching their peers, they might gain more but here we are talking about kids that are taking geometry or pre-calculus when their peers are still taking pre-algebra.
These kids are far better off learning new material.
The traditional way, I think you are seeing vagueness where little exists exists. How would you define “better off” so that they would be “better off” teaching another kid algebra rather than learning calculus?
They’ll be better socialized, better at communication, and, apparently, better at that algebra.
Unfortunately, here in America we have turned our public education system into a branch of our social safety net and social policy.
During our pandemic lockdown, one of the primary concerns was how do we ensure that the kids get fed if they don’t come to school. And the solution in many cases was distributing bag lunches at the schools for parents to pick up. ISTM that this measn that parents are there, they are willing to get off their ass to feed their children, but they may not have the food to do so. Is this really a problem that is best addressed through our public education system or is it better addressed through a more robust food stamp program?
Teachers see every problem in society and hos it affects kids and they tend to be the sort of people that want to fix these problems. They have one tool at their disposal and so they use it. They triage the students and tell themselves that the asians are doing just fine for now so lets help the blacks/hispanics at the expense of the asians for problems caused by whites. The problem is that they are not experts at solving those sorts of problems. The notion that the way to solve the lack of black/hispanic students at the most competitive high school is to simply put more black/hispanic kids in that school displays a pretty simplistic view of what the problem is and how to solve it.
I think most people agree that racism is real. The question is whether the solution to racism against one minority is to implement policies that are racist against another minority.
If you are seriously proposing that students who are ready to learn calculus should be denied level-appropriate math instruction so that they can tutor students literally five levels behind them, please stop beating around the bush and state so clearly. Or perhaps the idea is that students shouldn’t even be allowed to learn at an accelerated pace? It’s hard to tell.
They’ll be better socialized and have better communication skills? I do not see this conclusion in your cites. Can you provide the exact words that lead you to this conclusion?
And their algebra improvements are (in the words of your cite) underwhelming.
I think you have to squint pretty hard to consider them “better off” as unpaid teacher’s assistants.
You say “allowed to” like it’s some sort of natural right. Yes, this is the essence of what I’m saying - that classes should be taught as a community, not a set of individuals each with their own goals and some sort of internal hierarchy. That’s one of the many things the Finnish system gets right, strongly reducing competitiveness in the classroom.
It’s my inference, from the bare fact that they will be socializing and communicating more in that scenario.than the one where they just learn calculus by themselves (since the teacher is now occupied with helping the other students rather than them). Practice improves performance. Or are you going to pointlessly argue with that, too.
Net improvement for them, nonetheless, plus improvement for their peers. Win-win.
That you view this in terms of commerce, rather than a group of friends all working on achieving something better together, is a clear indicator that we have very different ideas about what schooling is supposed to achieve.
I thought posters here were full of shit when they said others were out to “destroy” the school, but I see I was wrong. Like it or not, students have individual educational needs and interests. Instead of providing education at a level and pace that each student is ready for, your proposal is to deliberately stunt the students who are ready for a faster pace or different level.
And yes, I wrote “allowed to” like it’s some sort of natural right to receive instruction at a level and pace that you are ready for. That goes for the kid who just moved here at 14 who doesn’t speak English. That goes for the kid who suffered a brain injury in early years who needs more time. And that goes for the kid who is ready for calculus in 9th grade.
Yeah, you’re seeing some of the monstrously evil ideas at the ultimate root of the CRT crusade being articulated at an unusually explicit level here. The people calling for the annihilation of the concept of “individuals with their own goals” in favor of a mass of indistinguishable forced mediocrity that resembles a cattle feed lot more than a school for high achievers are really showing just how bad it can get when you start down the path of “equity.” Usually they don’t come out and say what they want.