Well, I have a brother who teaches (only) AP courses in a mostly black school system…
But I am not concerned with the AP process; I am ridiculing your idea that gifted blacks who might be eligible for (any) program geared toward gifted children would opt out because they see a sea of white…(and actually, asian, if it’s math or sciences )
By LHoD:
“…a gifted black student who sees that the gifted program is overwhelmingly white may conclude that the program isn’t designed for her and may not make the same effort to get into it that a white child would…”
FWIW, the term “gifted” is a polite way of saying, “genetically-favored,” but hey…
Amen. And we should make sure those privileges continue, including race-based AA, at least until such time as nurturing opportunity is shown to be sufficient to erase any putative average genetic differences.
I think our US success story is remarkable. Not good enough, but we have come a long way as a society.
We don’t have to come up with “putative nurturing variables” – we’re only hypothesizing. Kind of like your genetic explanation hypothesis. The difference is that there is specific experimental evidence that refutes the genetic explanation, while none exists for the possible nurturing variables we’ve suggested.
Opportunity certainly hasn’t “crapped out” as a possible explanation.
Without any data on which genes are responsible for high and low intelligence, and how prevalent these genes are in various populations, and with the existence of actual experimental data that refutes the genetic explanation hypothesis, then you’re damn right we shouldn’t implicate genes.
Asserting that black people have inferior genes for intelligence is bad. Racist, even.
You ridicule that idea, but there’s plenty of research behind it, and I’ve personally witnessed it on more than one occasion.
No, it’s not. Probably the standard conception of giftedness has a five-pronged explanation of the provenance of the giftedness, of which genetics is one prong. If only I hadn’t returned my textbook on gifted education last week, I’d cite you the page and author.
Yes it does–what makes you think it doesn’t? African American children with highly educated parents are likelier to enter AIG programs than African American children without highly educated parents.
We have already established that “giftedness” as measured by scholastic achievement does not correlate with having a highly educated parent for blacks, although it does for children of other races. So no, it doesn’t.
What? I don’t think we’ve seen anything like that here, and I’ve seen the complete opposite both in personal experience and in the research I’ve read on CLD (culturally/linguistically diverse) learners and AIG programs (I’m working toward my MaEd in gifted education, so I’m kind of swamped with this sort of research). Are you sure you’re understanding the research you’re looking at? Not being snarky, but I really think you’re misinterpreting something.
Black students with one parent who holds a graduate degree tend to be outperformed by white students whose parents have a high school degree or less. Most people don’t think of that as being “gifted”.
That has nothing to do with the question – higher education for black parents would correlate with “giftedness” if black children with higher educated-parents are more likely to be gifted than black children without higher educated parents.
Okay. That can be true, and simultaneously it can be true that “giftedness” as measured by scholastic achievement correlates with having a highly educated parent for blacks.
Consider these made up numbers:
100 black students at a school. Of these students, 5 are in the gifted program.
Of those 100, ten students have parents with graduate degrees. Of the ten students with highly educated parents, four are in the gifted program.
100 white students at a school. Of these students, 40 are in the gifted program.
Of those 100, thirty students have parents with graduate degrees. Of the thirty students with highly educated parents, twenty are in the gifted program.
In this circumstance, 67% of white kids with highly educated parents are in the program, whereas only 40% of black students are. The white kids are in this measure outperforming the black kids.
However, of the 90 black students whose parents aren’t highly educated, only 1% are in the gifted program; of the ten kids with highly educated parents, 40% are in the gifted program. “Giftedness” as measured by scholastic achievement correlates with having a highly educated parent for blacks.
The actual numbers do look something like this, although I don’t have access to them right now.
I’d be a better basketball player with better nurturing. I wouldn’t make the NBA.
That’s not an argument against the role of nature.
What genes do is establish maximum potential. The argument is that gifted black students never achieve the same maximum potential as whites and asians, even when their parents are wealthy and educated and the white/asian cohort is poverty-stricken.
This suggest that the putative nurturing variables, while they may skew toward, are miles away from being an explanation.
Why is genes the max limit, not nurture? It seems to me that either one could arbitrarily be declared the maximum limit: that is, if you grow up in an environment fundamentally hostile to you, you’re never going to achieve as much as someone who grows up in a fundamentally hospitable environment.
Instead of twiddling these kinds of numbers, the more straightforward thing to do is look at performance outcomes for children of black wealthy and educated families against performance outcomes for children of poverty stricken whites. That’s a way to make sure you have more than normalized for the SES variable.
It doesn’t suggest this, because the nurturing variables are not even close to normalized.
Further, why do you keep saying that black people can never achieve similar heights to whites and asians? Do you really believe there are no absolutely brilliant black people?
These numbers were only there to demonstrate a point, that the conclusion Shodan drew from another bit of data analysis was not necessarily correct. In order to draw the conclusion from the actual data, we need the actual data set. I’ve got in my email a data set of AIG students in our district broken down by race, but I don’t have parent education levels. Do you have that data set? Again, keep in mind Shodan’s claim that parent education does not correlate with gifted identification for African American children; that’s a specific claim that is, I believe, false.
“Giftedness” as measured by scholastic achievement correlates much more strongly with having a highly educated parent for whites and Asians that it does for blacks.
LHoD is accurately describing a specific claim made by Shodan in this thread. Shodan’s claim above was not at all the same as the claim made by the OP. Shodan’s tangential claim seems to have derailed the discussion somewhat away from the OP, but when such a claim is made folks will address it.
)