9 ms·

Desegregation Plan: Eliminate All Gifted Programs in New York

58 points by colanderman 7y ago

alexandercrohde 7y ago
I can't see this possibly working. It would really just fuel even more segregation by having those students go to private school.
- kiba 7y ago
  Private school costs money?
- pacbard 7y ago
  As long that it’s done with all deliberate speed [1], white parents will be fine. /s More seriously and with less snark, as long as our schools are separate, we can’t have true social justice. That was at the heart of the Brown v. Board decision. It’s sad that even after more than 60 years our schools haven’t lived up to the spirit of that decision. [1]: https://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/6-legacy/deliberate-speed.html https://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/6-legacy/delibe...
  - malandrew 7y ago
    > true social justice What is "true social justice"? If you ask ten people, you'll probably get ten different answers.
  - ardit33 7y ago
    They already are.... 75% of the current public system is minorities..... The whites and asians (which for some weird reason, are not considered 'minorities') have already left the system altogether... I predict the next step is going to be to forbid private schooling altogether, or require minority quotas in private schools....
    - hadlock 7y ago
      Probably at that point the parents who can are going to send their kids to private boarding schools internationally. Depending on where you live currently and what country you send them to boarding school is price competitive with local (good) private schools...
      - smudgymcscmudge 7y ago
        Maybe they are price competitive, but they have the disadvantage of separating the kids from their parents. Most parents I know are pretty attached to their kids. I know I’m attached to mine.
    - alexandercrohde 7y ago
      Can you give me a source on that? Is that for NYC specifically?
    - OldManAndTheCpp 7y ago
      I wonder if this is unconstitutional: some private schools are religious.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    I’m pretty sure the holding of Brown v. Board was not that you can’t segregate schools based on test scores.
- bradleyjg 7y ago
  Seems like a pretty weak threat--"if you don't do what I want I'm going to stop taking your free services!" Okay great.
  - Viliam1234 7y ago
    The threat is indirect. When people use the free services, they care about their quality, so there is a pressure to keep the quality high. The more people stop using the services, the more people don't care if their quality goes down. This change can actually be irreversible, because as long as the quality is okay, people can leave and return on a whim, but when the quality goes down, they will be unlikely to return.
    - bradleyjg 7y ago
      That's an empty threat if you have segregated schools. Because they don't care about those other schools anyway. So there's no change--either they care about only the schools in "good neighborhoods" or they care only about private schools. At least in the latter case we aren't adding insult to injury by making everyone contribute to effectively private schools.
JumpCrisscross 7y ago
This is a classic example of banning the symptom in lieu of curing the cold. I volunteer in New York's K-5 public schools as a 1-on-1 tutor for children a bit behind their grade level on reading. These are smart kids in crowded classrooms with insufficient resources addressing their needs. Needs like mild hyperactivity, hunger, needing someone to talk to about the financial stress they know their parents are under, lacking a home internet connection, et cetera. These kids are also concentrated around black and Hispanic communities. These are solvable problems. Classrooms could be made less crowded. Funding could be increased. The small number of bad teachers could finally be held accountable. School lunch expanded. Mental health resources provided to students. Subsidies for households with young children at home. But instead we get treated to a fight on racial battle lines from a mayor who thinks he's running for President.
- OldHand2018 7y ago
  > These are solvable problems. ... Funding could be increased. ... School lunch expanded. On the subject of school lunches, it's not really a matter of increased funding. It is deciding to tackle the problem. Chicago Public Schools serves free breakfast and lunch [1] to all students (not just low-income) using the exact same funding sources that NYC and all other school districts use. They are completely open about how they did it [2]. They completely eliminated the practice of heating up frozen meals, renovated school kitchens and started cooking from scratch and buying directly from farmers. If only they put this much effort into the rest of the school operations... [1] https://cps.edu/About_CPS/Departments/Pages/MealRates.aspx https://cps.edu/About_CPS/Departments/Pages/MealRates.aspx [2] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I_IRmST0zFCtdok10VnSBMMJ6RvOPV-Z/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I_IRmST0zFCtdok10VnSBMMJ6Rv...
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
    Lunch is free in NYC schools as well. Not sure about breakfast.
  - esotericn 7y ago
    > They completely eliminated the practice of heating up frozen meals This is a thing in US schools? FFS. This puts conversations I have on here about cooking in context, if children are pretty much forced to eat that stuff.
mjfl 7y ago
How could anyone possibly support this policy?
- malandrew 7y ago
  There are quite a lot of people these days on a quixotic quest where diversity is their one and only holy grail, and it is to be achieved at all costs, all other considerations be damned.
  - AgentOrange1234 7y ago
    There are also quite a lot of people these days on an unholy quest to condemn the “sjws” they think are out to ruin ‘murica. My (white) kids are in GT and it is a godsend for them. So I pretty much hate everything about this article and am glad I don’t live in NYC. At the same time, I would love more diversity in their school. My high school was 95+% white. We are a seriously segregated country, and it’s a real problem.
- manfredo 7y ago
  There's a lot of dissatisfaction with the race-blind test-based admissions that result in disparities in admissions between ethnic groups [1]. A significant portion of people want equality of outcome. Especially how the article writes: > The city should also redesign its competitive high school admissions process to ensure that high schools reflect the racial and economic make up of their boroughs, the panel found. It does sound an awful lot like racial quotas (or, "outcome base goals" is I think the more contemporary term). But that's the view of equality that many people have. Ultimately, I'm not sure if this will result in real desegregation. Even in schools that are desegregated on paper, students are internally segregated by academic capability. A Seattle HS principal explains his perspective here [2]. Students studying AP calc aren't studying with the ones doing geometry. Same with AP ____ classes. But that's a harder problem to solve, and politicians feel pressured to deliver something to their constituents. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/nyregion/black-students-nyc-high-schools.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/nyregion/black-students-n... Stuyvesant isn't impacted by this proposal, but this article offers a good portrayal of what I'm referring to. 2. https://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/microcosm-of-the-city-garfield-principal-navigates-racial-divide/ https://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/microcosm-of-the-...
greywolf 7y ago
make everyone dumb, rather than advance in fixing the real issues. typical leftist attitude. god forbid geniuses among us.
malandrew 7y ago
> The panel wrote that “high-achievement students deserve to be challenged,” but in different ways. One could argue that bad public schools with bad teachers and less capable colleagues are a challenge of sorts. My takeaway for stories like this is that "progressive" ideas continue to inch closer and closer to the dystopia of Harrison Bergeron. It's a shame that this line ended up at the very end of the article (which most people won't reach): > Still, the report said, a system that relies heavily on sorting students according to academic ability “is not equitable, even if it is effective for some.” Handicapping people for the sake of equity. What could possibly go wrong...
seibelj 7y ago
A flawless, proven solution to eliminate inequality is to seize everything of value from everyone. Then we are all equal.
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't post unsubstantive comments here.
- UnpossibleJim 7y ago
  It's the premise of Harrison Bergeron. Put everyone at the lowest common denominator to make society truly equal.
herostratus101 7y ago
Holy fuck this is a stupid idea.
beerdoggie 7y ago
Great, make the "gifted" kids even more likely to be bored and disengage.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
bradleyjg 7y ago
A lot of negative reactions here. There's gifted and there's gifted. Should Hunter College Elementary School which requires off the chart scores being eliminated? No. Do somewhere between 10 and 20% of students need to be pulled out into separate programs? Also no. The cutoff for district G&T programs in NYC is currently 90 percentile. For reference 90th percentile on the SAT in a nationally representative sample is 1290 / 1600. Sorry, but I don't think at that point we are looking at special needs that come with extreme precociousness.
- blatherard 7y ago
  That 90th percentile doesn't guarantee a slot in a G&T program. It's kind of an elaborate system, but depending on what district your child is in or what school you're considering, the effective cutoff can be much higher. For example, my son's program only admitted children with either a 98 or 99 when he got into it 4 years ago. In a district like ours (District 3, which is basically the Upper West Side), a score of 90 won't get you a spot anywhere, unless... ...you have a child with a 90 with a sibling already in a program. If one child tests into a program, then later siblings are given preference over children without a sibling in the school, as long as they have a score over 90.
  - bradleyjg 7y ago
    > but depending on what district your child is in Which just goes to show another way that the system in NYC is totally screwed up. We all live in the same city, under the same law, and pay the same tax rates, so why is the city carved up into tiny little zones that have such a big influence on which schools kids go to? We aren't talking about hour long bus rides here, but mere blocks. Let's combine the catchment districts of 199 and 191 and send students to each randomly. Why not?
- RhysU 7y ago
  >...I don't think at that point we are looking at special needs... What is the societal loss incurred because of, say, the worst 1% of your hypothetical top 10% (i.e. just the 90th quantile) getting bored/discouraged/checking out before middle school? Are those kids precocious? No. Are we disproportionately better off if the 90th quantile thrives? Yes.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
One thing that is interesting, is that people of Asian origin are increasingly being lumped in with white people. Whenever, you hear about lack of minorities in a certain field, people of Asian origins are inevitably excluded from the analysis by being put in the category of "whites and Asians". Right now people of Asian origin, are by and large liberal and support Democrats over Republicans. But if Democrats, keep pursuing policies that disadvantage their children, do not be surprised, if in the near future, you see Republicans making large in-roads with people of Asian origin.
- deogeo 7y ago
  Because in a lot of cases, when you split whites and Asians apart, it turns out whites are under-represented (e.g. at Google, at Harvard, at Yale..) That would raise too many questions.
- manfredo 7y ago
  The word "minority" has the connotation of "underpriviliged". While there are poor Asians, the median Asian American income is $20k higher than the median US income ($80k vs $60k). Also, historically Asian Americans actually have voted more conservative (over 2/3 voted Republican as late as the 80s). The shift towards democrats was more recent, and is considered to be a product of anti-immigrant Republican policy and tensions with China (large segment of Asian Americans are Chinese).
- rayiner 7y ago
  Note that Asians skewed quite strongly republican as recently as 1996, and some Asian groups still do (Vietnamese Americans overwhelmingly approve of Trump). That said, Trump got just 18% of the Asian vote, far less than the 32% he got of the Hispanic vote. Although the nativist tendencies of the Republican Party as of late have been directed at Hispanics, Asians have somehow reacted even even more strongly to that tone.
  - weiming 7y ago
    This space intentionally left blank
smudgymcscmudge 7y ago
I’m amazed to read that the mayor has the power to enact something like this. Where I live we have school boards who have nothing to do with city government. I thought all of America was that way. Why would people expect that they mayor knows anything about education?
- bradleyjg 7y ago
  It's a special New York State law that allows for mayoral control of the schools. It has only been in place since 2002. In the local context it makes sense because the mayor is the only municipal position that is prominent enough to sometimes escape control by the still powerful political machines.
  - smudgymcscmudge 7y ago
    That’s interesting. I’ve never lived anywhere big enough for machine politics. Around here the school board is populated by moms who are interested in their kids’ education. Maybe too specific to _their_ kids, but at least they aren’t using the school system to further ambitions for higher office.
marmada 7y ago
Surely the solution couldn't be lifting up impoverished students instead of pulling those who succeed down? As an Asian, this pisses me off. If you work hard and get high test scores, you should be rewarded.
- rtmaximo 7y ago
  Crabs in the bucket culture.
anonymousiam 7y ago
I was in the G&T program as a child. (It was called AT for "Academically Talented" at the time.) As the program was run then (in California), I would spend one afternoon per week studying Greek mythology or similar useless subjects, but it was a welcome diversion. I ended up testing out of high school 2-1/2 years early due to boredom. Both of my kids were also in the program, but it is even more useless today than it was in the past. What I observed is that the schools (in California) do not seem to like the "segregation", so they do not fund the program. They put a whole lot more money into the "mainstreaming" programs to bring academically disadvantaged people into the regular classrooms. As a parent, I feel regret for not getting my kids into a private school so they could reach their potential. My older son also tested out of High School. My younger son simply dropped out. Both of them have a tainted view of higher education because of their experience in public schools.
dragonwriter 7y ago
From what I understand, the trend in gifted education nationally has, for some years, been away from segregated schools and programs in favor of modified curriculum in mainstream classrooms, which often involves applying the individual curriculum adaptations often used in gifted classrooms to the whole student population. If this is what eliminating New Yorker existing segregated gifted programs means, that may not be a bad thing.
rayiner 7y ago
The goal is admirable, but the means de Blasio has chosen is unfortunate. I went to a gifted talented school in Virginia. On one hand, it was odd to miss out on being with “normal” kids. On the other hand, it was nice to not be with the “normal” kids. My friends and I did a robotic float for homecoming our junior year and an art/drama geek was elected homecoming queen. Getting into MIT or Caltech got you far more attention and profile than being on the football team. It was a completely unique experience that was really fantastic for a lot of people.
hogFeast 7y ago
Maybe I am missing something but this sounds like a way to reduce inequality by pulling down the people who are doing well? Any policy that feeds on jealously and resentment - powerful and volatile human emotions - is unlikely to produce actual results imo (which is the point presumably).
m0zg 7y ago
The entire purpose of primary education should be to identify, support, and challenge gifted youth. With the boundaries of human knowledge reaching the limits of human understanding, more than ever before we need the "outliers". Easily 90% of kids in any given school (including my own kid, unfortunately) couldn't care any less about getting proper education. Those that do care are truly precious, and they are currently badly screwed by the public school system even _with_ the "gifted" programs in place. And among those who care, there's a small percentage of truly, staggeringly gifted kids. Those must receive disproportionate attention and support. We cannot afford them getting disillusioned and throwing in the towel.
supernova87a 7y ago
I feel I must adapt a saying of Milton Friedman in response to this: "When you aim for equality over excellence, you will achieve neither equality nor excellence." This is so wrongheaded one almost doesn't know where to begin. There are so many fronts of error and public policy gone wrong to the tune of populism (ironically). First of all, you ask what the goal is, for these equality advocates. Is it equality of performance across all students, and none of them shall ever be allowed to have a gifted talented program in the future? Because if they miraculously are successful, someday all students will be minimally achieving across all demographics, and then what about the gifted ones? Will they reinstitute gifted programs then? Or only if it again samples the racial groups equally? Or worse (and I hope they think this self-aware), only if the "right" minorities are sampled? Because sometimes I wonder if only certain favored minorities get advocated for in this way. Anyway, as many have said before, the problems of underachieving students extend far beyond the help of the classroom, and are the product of homes, parents, environment, that no banning of otherwise race-blind programs will do any more to achieve. This move will not somehow make NYC's schools better or in-classroom instruction more effective, you'd better believe that -- and isn't that the point? 2nd point: NYC will be gutting no small fraction of the people who make its future bright, in the name of trying to remediate the general population (ineffectively I may say). Why? Because unpopular as it is to say, a city's (or country's) future isn't propelled by the average person. It's driven by outstanding people, rockstars, high performers. The kinds of people who get into (and are educated at) places that get called "elite". You can see this in your daily life. Most people who do a job are just barely doing it competently. It takes the people with imagination, drive, ideas, talent, who are a cut above the rest to make significant differences and change. People don't flock to NYC because it's average. They flock there because there's exceptional people, places, companies, and infrastructure to do the things they want to do. NYC would be cutting its exceptionality off at the knees to make the average person only slightly better. That's a mistake. Finally, a closing thought: "THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General. "
fargle 7y ago
I'm constantly surprised, confused, and appalled when moves, however imperfect, toward a more meritocratic system are thwarted by, possibly well meaning, progressives who have the most to benefit. So let's ditch a fantastic program based on objective measures so we can meet some racist quotas...
- 1PlayerOne 7y ago
  I have a son in G&T program in Queens so this has some relevance for me. This is a purely political move by De Blasio, which I think will face strong objection and, I hope, will fail miserably. Now there are people who think that black kids will magically become better students because they sit next to high achievers. But as a former NYC student I would tell them that it is, sadly, not the case. Black kids need additional help, why not set up schools where kids, black, white, yellow, brown, get the extra discipline and help that they need. No, that is no joke and it will only work if these school have the same high expectation and concomitant resources. The problem in the end is that there is not enough resources and political will to help these kids. Naturally, the parents who are resourceful will find way to help their own kids succeed. The issue is how to do it for every kid.
sunstone 7y ago
This article is a little confusing. It implies that most white and asian kids are going to gifted schools. Can that really be the case? Kids that are actually gifted probably benefit from more challenging material but they don't need that all day long in a separate school. Think of them as handicapped kids that need a little extra attention but attend the same school as every one else.

58 points by colanderman 7y ago

I can't see this possibly working. It would really just fuel even more segregation by having those students go to private school.

kiba 7y ago
Private school costs money?
pacbard 7y ago
As long that it’s done with all deliberate speed [1], white parents will be fine. /s More seriously and with less snark, as long as our schools are separate, we can’t have true social justice. That was at the heart of the Brown v. Board decision. It’s sad that even after more than 60 years our schools haven’t lived up to the spirit of that decision. [1]: https://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/6-legacy/deliberate-speed.html https://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/6-legacy/delibe...
- malandrew 7y ago
  > true social justice What is "true social justice"? If you ask ten people, you'll probably get ten different answers.
- ardit33 7y ago
  They already are.... 75% of the current public system is minorities..... The whites and asians (which for some weird reason, are not considered 'minorities') have already left the system altogether... I predict the next step is going to be to forbid private schooling altogether, or require minority quotas in private schools....
  - hadlock 7y ago
    Probably at that point the parents who can are going to send their kids to private boarding schools internationally. Depending on where you live currently and what country you send them to boarding school is price competitive with local (good) private schools...
    - smudgymcscmudge 7y ago
      Maybe they are price competitive, but they have the disadvantage of separating the kids from their parents. Most parents I know are pretty attached to their kids. I know I’m attached to mine.
  - alexandercrohde 7y ago
    Can you give me a source on that? Is that for NYC specifically?
  - OldManAndTheCpp 7y ago
    I wonder if this is unconstitutional: some private schools are religious.
- rayiner 7y ago
  I’m pretty sure the holding of Brown v. Board was not that you can’t segregate schools based on test scores.
bradleyjg 7y ago
Seems like a pretty weak threat--"if you don't do what I want I'm going to stop taking your free services!" Okay great.
- Viliam1234 7y ago
  The threat is indirect. When people use the free services, they care about their quality, so there is a pressure to keep the quality high. The more people stop using the services, the more people don't care if their quality goes down. This change can actually be irreversible, because as long as the quality is okay, people can leave and return on a whim, but when the quality goes down, they will be unlikely to return.
  - bradleyjg 7y ago
    That's an empty threat if you have segregated schools. Because they don't care about those other schools anyway. So there's no change--either they care about only the schools in "good neighborhoods" or they care only about private schools. At least in the latter case we aren't adding insult to injury by making everyone contribute to effectively private schools.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

This is a classic example of banning the symptom in lieu of curing the cold. I volunteer in New York's K-5 public schools as a 1-on-1 tutor for children a bit behind their grade level on reading. These are smart kids in crowded classrooms with insufficient resources addressing their needs. Needs like mild hyperactivity, hunger, needing someone to talk to about the financial stress they know their parents are under, lacking a home internet connection, et cetera. These kids are also concentrated around black and Hispanic communities. These are solvable problems. Classrooms could be made less crowded. Funding could be increased. The small number of bad teachers could finally be held accountable. School lunch expanded. Mental health resources provided to students. Subsidies for households with young children at home. But instead we get treated to a fight on racial battle lines from a mayor who thinks he's running for President.

OldHand2018 7y ago
> These are solvable problems. ... Funding could be increased. ... School lunch expanded. On the subject of school lunches, it's not really a matter of increased funding. It is deciding to tackle the problem. Chicago Public Schools serves free breakfast and lunch [1] to all students (not just low-income) using the exact same funding sources that NYC and all other school districts use. They are completely open about how they did it [2]. They completely eliminated the practice of heating up frozen meals, renovated school kitchens and started cooking from scratch and buying directly from farmers. If only they put this much effort into the rest of the school operations... [1] https://cps.edu/About_CPS/Departments/Pages/MealRates.aspx https://cps.edu/About_CPS/Departments/Pages/MealRates.aspx [2] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I_IRmST0zFCtdok10VnSBMMJ6RvOPV-Z/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I_IRmST0zFCtdok10VnSBMMJ6Rv...
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
  Lunch is free in NYC schools as well. Not sure about breakfast.
- esotericn 7y ago
  > They completely eliminated the practice of heating up frozen meals This is a thing in US schools? FFS. This puts conversations I have on here about cooking in context, if children are pretty much forced to eat that stuff.

mjfl 7y ago

How could anyone possibly support this policy?

malandrew 7y ago
There are quite a lot of people these days on a quixotic quest where diversity is their one and only holy grail, and it is to be achieved at all costs, all other considerations be damned.
- AgentOrange1234 7y ago
  There are also quite a lot of people these days on an unholy quest to condemn the “sjws” they think are out to ruin ‘murica. My (white) kids are in GT and it is a godsend for them. So I pretty much hate everything about this article and am glad I don’t live in NYC. At the same time, I would love more diversity in their school. My high school was 95+% white. We are a seriously segregated country, and it’s a real problem.
manfredo 7y ago
There's a lot of dissatisfaction with the race-blind test-based admissions that result in disparities in admissions between ethnic groups [1]. A significant portion of people want equality of outcome. Especially how the article writes: > The city should also redesign its competitive high school admissions process to ensure that high schools reflect the racial and economic make up of their boroughs, the panel found. It does sound an awful lot like racial quotas (or, "outcome base goals" is I think the more contemporary term). But that's the view of equality that many people have. Ultimately, I'm not sure if this will result in real desegregation. Even in schools that are desegregated on paper, students are internally segregated by academic capability. A Seattle HS principal explains his perspective here [2]. Students studying AP calc aren't studying with the ones doing geometry. Same with AP ____ classes. But that's a harder problem to solve, and politicians feel pressured to deliver something to their constituents. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/nyregion/black-students-nyc-high-schools.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/nyregion/black-students-n... Stuyvesant isn't impacted by this proposal, but this article offers a good portrayal of what I'm referring to. 2. https://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/microcosm-of-the-city-garfield-principal-navigates-racial-divide/ https://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/microcosm-of-the-...

greywolf 7y ago

make everyone dumb, rather than advance in fixing the real issues. typical leftist attitude. god forbid geniuses among us.

malandrew 7y ago

> The panel wrote that “high-achievement students deserve to be challenged,” but in different ways. One could argue that bad public schools with bad teachers and less capable colleagues are a challenge of sorts. My takeaway for stories like this is that "progressive" ideas continue to inch closer and closer to the dystopia of Harrison Bergeron. It's a shame that this line ended up at the very end of the article (which most people won't reach): > Still, the report said, a system that relies heavily on sorting students according to academic ability “is not equitable, even if it is effective for some.” Handicapping people for the sake of equity. What could possibly go wrong...

seibelj 7y ago

A flawless, proven solution to eliminate inequality is to seize everything of value from everyone. Then we are all equal.

dang 7y ago
Please don't post unsubstantive comments here.
UnpossibleJim 7y ago
It's the premise of Harrison Bergeron. Put everyone at the lowest common denominator to make society truly equal.

herostratus101 7y ago

Holy fuck this is a stupid idea.

beerdoggie 7y ago

Great, make the "gifted" kids even more likely to be bored and disengage.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

bradleyjg 7y ago

A lot of negative reactions here. There's gifted and there's gifted. Should Hunter College Elementary School which requires off the chart scores being eliminated? No. Do somewhere between 10 and 20% of students need to be pulled out into separate programs? Also no. The cutoff for district G&T programs in NYC is currently 90 percentile. For reference 90th percentile on the SAT in a nationally representative sample is 1290 / 1600. Sorry, but I don't think at that point we are looking at special needs that come with extreme precociousness.

blatherard 7y ago
That 90th percentile doesn't guarantee a slot in a G&T program. It's kind of an elaborate system, but depending on what district your child is in or what school you're considering, the effective cutoff can be much higher. For example, my son's program only admitted children with either a 98 or 99 when he got into it 4 years ago. In a district like ours (District 3, which is basically the Upper West Side), a score of 90 won't get you a spot anywhere, unless... ...you have a child with a 90 with a sibling already in a program. If one child tests into a program, then later siblings are given preference over children without a sibling in the school, as long as they have a score over 90.
- bradleyjg 7y ago
  > but depending on what district your child is in Which just goes to show another way that the system in NYC is totally screwed up. We all live in the same city, under the same law, and pay the same tax rates, so why is the city carved up into tiny little zones that have such a big influence on which schools kids go to? We aren't talking about hour long bus rides here, but mere blocks. Let's combine the catchment districts of 199 and 191 and send students to each randomly. Why not?
RhysU 7y ago
>...I don't think at that point we are looking at special needs... What is the societal loss incurred because of, say, the worst 1% of your hypothetical top 10% (i.e. just the 90th quantile) getting bored/discouraged/checking out before middle school? Are those kids precocious? No. Are we disproportionately better off if the 90th quantile thrives? Yes.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago

One thing that is interesting, is that people of Asian origin are increasingly being lumped in with white people. Whenever, you hear about lack of minorities in a certain field, people of Asian origins are inevitably excluded from the analysis by being put in the category of "whites and Asians". Right now people of Asian origin, are by and large liberal and support Democrats over Republicans. But if Democrats, keep pursuing policies that disadvantage their children, do not be surprised, if in the near future, you see Republicans making large in-roads with people of Asian origin.

deogeo 7y ago
Because in a lot of cases, when you split whites and Asians apart, it turns out whites are under-represented (e.g. at Google, at Harvard, at Yale..) That would raise too many questions.
manfredo 7y ago
The word "minority" has the connotation of "underpriviliged". While there are poor Asians, the median Asian American income is $20k higher than the median US income ($80k vs $60k). Also, historically Asian Americans actually have voted more conservative (over 2/3 voted Republican as late as the 80s). The shift towards democrats was more recent, and is considered to be a product of anti-immigrant Republican policy and tensions with China (large segment of Asian Americans are Chinese).
rayiner 7y ago
Note that Asians skewed quite strongly republican as recently as 1996, and some Asian groups still do (Vietnamese Americans overwhelmingly approve of Trump). That said, Trump got just 18% of the Asian vote, far less than the 32% he got of the Hispanic vote. Although the nativist tendencies of the Republican Party as of late have been directed at Hispanics, Asians have somehow reacted even even more strongly to that tone.
- weiming 7y ago
  This space intentionally left blank

smudgymcscmudge 7y ago

I’m amazed to read that the mayor has the power to enact something like this. Where I live we have school boards who have nothing to do with city government. I thought all of America was that way. Why would people expect that they mayor knows anything about education?

bradleyjg 7y ago
It's a special New York State law that allows for mayoral control of the schools. It has only been in place since 2002. In the local context it makes sense because the mayor is the only municipal position that is prominent enough to sometimes escape control by the still powerful political machines.
- smudgymcscmudge 7y ago
  That’s interesting. I’ve never lived anywhere big enough for machine politics. Around here the school board is populated by moms who are interested in their kids’ education. Maybe too specific to _their_ kids, but at least they aren’t using the school system to further ambitions for higher office.

marmada 7y ago

Surely the solution couldn't be lifting up impoverished students instead of pulling those who succeed down? As an Asian, this pisses me off. If you work hard and get high test scores, you should be rewarded.

rtmaximo 7y ago
Crabs in the bucket culture.

anonymousiam 7y ago

I was in the G&T program as a child. (It was called AT for "Academically Talented" at the time.) As the program was run then (in California), I would spend one afternoon per week studying Greek mythology or similar useless subjects, but it was a welcome diversion. I ended up testing out of high school 2-1/2 years early due to boredom. Both of my kids were also in the program, but it is even more useless today than it was in the past. What I observed is that the schools (in California) do not seem to like the "segregation", so they do not fund the program. They put a whole lot more money into the "mainstreaming" programs to bring academically disadvantaged people into the regular classrooms. As a parent, I feel regret for not getting my kids into a private school so they could reach their potential. My older son also tested out of High School. My younger son simply dropped out. Both of them have a tainted view of higher education because of their experience in public schools.

dragonwriter 7y ago

From what I understand, the trend in gifted education nationally has, for some years, been away from segregated schools and programs in favor of modified curriculum in mainstream classrooms, which often involves applying the individual curriculum adaptations often used in gifted classrooms to the whole student population. If this is what eliminating New Yorker existing segregated gifted programs means, that may not be a bad thing.

rayiner 7y ago

The goal is admirable, but the means de Blasio has chosen is unfortunate. I went to a gifted talented school in Virginia. On one hand, it was odd to miss out on being with “normal” kids. On the other hand, it was nice to not be with the “normal” kids. My friends and I did a robotic float for homecoming our junior year and an art/drama geek was elected homecoming queen. Getting into MIT or Caltech got you far more attention and profile than being on the football team. It was a completely unique experience that was really fantastic for a lot of people.

hogFeast 7y ago

Maybe I am missing something but this sounds like a way to reduce inequality by pulling down the people who are doing well? Any policy that feeds on jealously and resentment - powerful and volatile human emotions - is unlikely to produce actual results imo (which is the point presumably).

m0zg 7y ago

The entire purpose of primary education should be to identify, support, and challenge gifted youth. With the boundaries of human knowledge reaching the limits of human understanding, more than ever before we need the "outliers". Easily 90% of kids in any given school (including my own kid, unfortunately) couldn't care any less about getting proper education. Those that do care are truly precious, and they are currently badly screwed by the public school system even _with_ the "gifted" programs in place. And among those who care, there's a small percentage of truly, staggeringly gifted kids. Those must receive disproportionate attention and support. We cannot afford them getting disillusioned and throwing in the towel.

supernova87a 7y ago

I feel I must adapt a saying of Milton Friedman in response to this: "When you aim for equality over excellence, you will achieve neither equality nor excellence." This is so wrongheaded one almost doesn't know where to begin. There are so many fronts of error and public policy gone wrong to the tune of populism (ironically). First of all, you ask what the goal is, for these equality advocates. Is it equality of performance across all students, and none of them shall ever be allowed to have a gifted talented program in the future? Because if they miraculously are successful, someday all students will be minimally achieving across all demographics, and then what about the gifted ones? Will they reinstitute gifted programs then? Or only if it again samples the racial groups equally? Or worse (and I hope they think this self-aware), only if the "right" minorities are sampled? Because sometimes I wonder if only certain favored minorities get advocated for in this way. Anyway, as many have said before, the problems of underachieving students extend far beyond the help of the classroom, and are the product of homes, parents, environment, that no banning of otherwise race-blind programs will do any more to achieve. This move will not somehow make NYC's schools better or in-classroom instruction more effective, you'd better believe that -- and isn't that the point? 2nd point: NYC will be gutting no small fraction of the people who make its future bright, in the name of trying to remediate the general population (ineffectively I may say). Why? Because unpopular as it is to say, a city's (or country's) future isn't propelled by the average person. It's driven by outstanding people, rockstars, high performers. The kinds of people who get into (and are educated at) places that get called "elite". You can see this in your daily life. Most people who do a job are just barely doing it competently. It takes the people with imagination, drive, ideas, talent, who are a cut above the rest to make significant differences and change. People don't flock to NYC because it's average. They flock there because there's exceptional people, places, companies, and infrastructure to do the things they want to do. NYC would be cutting its exceptionality off at the knees to make the average person only slightly better. That's a mistake. Finally, a closing thought: "THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General. "

fargle 7y ago

I'm constantly surprised, confused, and appalled when moves, however imperfect, toward a more meritocratic system are thwarted by, possibly well meaning, progressives who have the most to benefit. So let's ditch a fantastic program based on objective measures so we can meet some racist quotas...

1PlayerOne 7y ago
I have a son in G&T program in Queens so this has some relevance for me. This is a purely political move by De Blasio, which I think will face strong objection and, I hope, will fail miserably. Now there are people who think that black kids will magically become better students because they sit next to high achievers. But as a former NYC student I would tell them that it is, sadly, not the case. Black kids need additional help, why not set up schools where kids, black, white, yellow, brown, get the extra discipline and help that they need. No, that is no joke and it will only work if these school have the same high expectation and concomitant resources. The problem in the end is that there is not enough resources and political will to help these kids. Naturally, the parents who are resourceful will find way to help their own kids succeed. The issue is how to do it for every kid.

sunstone 7y ago

This article is a little confusing. It implies that most white and asian kids are going to gifted schools. Can that really be the case? Kids that are actually gifted probably benefit from more challenging material but they don't need that all day long in a separate school. Think of them as handicapped kids that need a little extra attention but attend the same school as every one else.