2 ms·
Context: wealthy white parent of a public school student living in NYC. I do not subscribe to the "equality of outcome" goal that some other folks in the thread
by asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
Context: wealthy white parent of a public school student living in NYC. I do not subscribe to the "equality of outcome" goal that some other folks in the thread have imputed on the supporters of this move. I haven't had time to make up my mind on this. However, I can definitely understand the motivation, and I can picture being in support.
So here's the background, as I understand it: one really important question is whether the G&T program actually provides any better education to the kids that are in it. Many people feel it doesn't. It doesn't have its own curriculum, except the citywide program, where they just tackle material a year earlier than usual. The district-wide G&T programs -- which comprise the vast majority of the system -- just leave a little more up to teacher discretion than mainstream classrooms.
So the question then becomes, what is the actual value of the G&T programs (other than the citywide one)? People do not believe that white and asian people are intentionally segregating themselves from black and hispanic people for no other benefit. However, that is the most obvious effect. And as we all know, the purpose of a system is what it does.
From the perspective of that systems engineering-style thinking, unless a positive case can be made for the G&T program, there's a strong argument to be made that it should be scrapped. The school district has no compelling interest in providing a system whose sole benefit is socioeconomic and racial sorting. In fact, the main beneficiaries of this move would be the very folks who work so hard to get their kids into G&T programs. Because that stressor -- getting kids into the program -- would be removed, while giving no worse outcomes than what they could have expected before.
That is the gist of the argument in support of getting rid of the program.
My son did not test in to G&T. He has some various social and linguistic delays, but, more importantly, I did not do any of the test prep I'm led to believe many of my colleagues gave their kids. I will probably have my son retested this year after doing some professional test prep. Even though I think it's possible the G&T programs offer no benefit, it's hard to wager his future on that bet, and he wasn't that far from testing in. A lot will depend on how his first year of classes go.
- rhapsodic 7y agoIf you're wealthy, why not send your son to private school?
- RhysU 7y ago> It doesn't have its own curriculum, except the citywide program, where they just tackle material a year earlier than usual. What's wrong with just being a full-year ahead? If the core curriculum is essential, something like a reasonable claim, then not skipping any of it would follow. Either additional lessons would be needed at extra cost or it could be sped up. They chose sped up. Very common for students outside NY who excel at, say, math. > And as we all know, the purpose of a system is what it does. Have a citation for my exploring this line of thought?
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago> What's wrong with just being a full-year ahead? Nothing. That's why I called it out as an exception to my overall suggestion that G&T might not be useful. > Have a citation for my exploring this line of thought? Sure! I find it a really fascinating perspective. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...