4 ms·

The problem with the G&T program was that it did a better job of selecting for parental affluence (the ability to pay 4-5 figures for test prep for your toddler

The problem with the G&T program was that it did a better job of selecting for parental affluence (the ability to pay 4-5 figures for test prep for your toddler, and the time to navigate a byzantine system) than for inherent differences in student capabilities. Strangely enough, there were also a very limited number of G&T programs, including none in many of the poorer areas of the city, so if you lived in, say, the west side of the Bronx (as a friend of mine did) and wanted to send your kids to a G&T school, your best case was a 1.5 hour transit commute to East Harlem. My friend and his spouse could do that because they had work flexibility (including the flexibility for one of them not to work), but poor people don't usually have that either. Effectively, this works out to socio-economic desegregation masquerading as racial desegregation (because, for various historical and structural reasons, race in NYC is correlated to affluence).

padastra 5y ago
There are numerous sources in this thread that show that the Asian group, highly selected for here, are predominantly poor. Just parroting a talking point without looking at the data is as idiotic as what we all accuse Trump supporters of.
- InitialLastName 5y ago
  To counter evidence with evidence, the "Asian" group is very heterogeneous, and more bimodal with respect to wealth than other groups[0][1]. Has anyone presented any data that I missed on which side of that divide the Asian G&T students in NYC schools are being drawn from? [0]https://ncrc.org/racial-wealth-snapshot-asian-americans-and-the-racial-wealth-divide/ https://ncrc.org/racial-wealth-snapshot-asian-americans-and-... [1]https://documentedny.com/2018/09/04/language-gap-drives-growing-asian-american-wealth-disparity/ https://documentedny.com/2018/09/04/language-gap-drives-grow...
  - padastra 5y ago
    I'm not sure that's counter evidence (i.e. it doesn't lend proof to the OP's position either, it just decreases the certainty of both positions). The only source I could find with respect to your question is that "Students from the 19 poorest districts, who make up about 31% of kindergarteners citywide, represented about 28% of gifted offers last year" (https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/ny-gifted-admissions-shakeup-poor-districts-increase-20210713-ima2vju5kvgf3gse6nko7p2llq-story.html https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/ny-gifted-adm...), but I do not have the primary data. Given the overall ethnic representation of the school, it is statistically extremely likely that a large fraction of the 28% are Asian. I also find no cited evidence in many of the pro-ending-G&T articles that G&T programs cater to wealthy students, and presumably De Blasio and others who have access to the data and want to end the programs would have pushed those facts out there. Anecdotally, wealthy whites and asians have the opportunity to send their children to private schools without spending a large portion of their young lives testing into G&T programs.
_hilro 5y ago
> The problem with the G&T program was that it did a better job of selecting for parental affluence (the ability to pay 4-5 figures for test prep for your toddler, and the time to navigate a byzantine system) than for inherent differences in student capabilities. Spoken so authoritatively that I'm sure you have a source?

padastra 5y ago

There are numerous sources in this thread that show that the Asian group, highly selected for here, are predominantly poor. Just parroting a talking point without looking at the data is as idiotic as what we all accuse Trump supporters of.

InitialLastName 5y ago
To counter evidence with evidence, the "Asian" group is very heterogeneous, and more bimodal with respect to wealth than other groups[0][1]. Has anyone presented any data that I missed on which side of that divide the Asian G&T students in NYC schools are being drawn from? [0]https://ncrc.org/racial-wealth-snapshot-asian-americans-and-the-racial-wealth-divide/ https://ncrc.org/racial-wealth-snapshot-asian-americans-and-... [1]https://documentedny.com/2018/09/04/language-gap-drives-growing-asian-american-wealth-disparity/ https://documentedny.com/2018/09/04/language-gap-drives-grow...
- padastra 5y ago
  I'm not sure that's counter evidence (i.e. it doesn't lend proof to the OP's position either, it just decreases the certainty of both positions). The only source I could find with respect to your question is that "Students from the 19 poorest districts, who make up about 31% of kindergarteners citywide, represented about 28% of gifted offers last year" (https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/ny-gifted-admissions-shakeup-poor-districts-increase-20210713-ima2vju5kvgf3gse6nko7p2llq-story.html https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/ny-gifted-adm...), but I do not have the primary data. Given the overall ethnic representation of the school, it is statistically extremely likely that a large fraction of the 28% are Asian. I also find no cited evidence in many of the pro-ending-G&T articles that G&T programs cater to wealthy students, and presumably De Blasio and others who have access to the data and want to end the programs would have pushed those facts out there. Anecdotally, wealthy whites and asians have the opportunity to send their children to private schools without spending a large portion of their young lives testing into G&T programs.

_hilro 5y ago

> The problem with the G&T program was that it did a better job of selecting for parental affluence (the ability to pay 4-5 figures for test prep for your toddler, and the time to navigate a byzantine system) than for inherent differences in student capabilities. Spoken so authoritatively that I'm sure you have a source?