3 ms·

With respect, as a NYC public school parent who served on education councils, the G&T program was neither. It was a fraudulent vehicle for bringing white famili

With respect, as a NYC public school parent who served on education councils, the G&T program was neither. It was a fraudulent vehicle for bringing white families into the public school system. It's good that it's over, at least nominally. In most cases there were no differences in the curricula between G&T and non-G&T, just differences in the skin color of the students. Over the last decade the DOE has become quite adept at delivering differential learning in classroom, dependent on only one thing- how many adults can be in the classroom at one time. G&T program operation actually detracted from that capability. Again, it is good it is gone. In terms of the bullshit equality of outcome argument- it's a strawman. Complete garbage. The NYC wants all students to graduate, but meeting students where they are, then enabling differentiated experience and outcome is entirely what the system is designed for, and, better than any other education system in the country, delivers. In terms of Jordan Peterson- JFC, the best thing I can say is- he is not an education advocate. In terms of philosophy he tells fanciful fictional stories that have nothing to do with reality. Best find other sources for your education about education. Best wishes.

rafale 5y ago
You certainly know the program better than I do. But my understanding is that white students are underpresented in G&T, the same as black and latino students. It's the asian students that are overrepresented. Reflecting their community culture that value academic excellence. I don't see a problem with that. If your argument was true, that the program is a vehicule to bring white families, then why is it being dominated by asian students?
- jonahbenton 5y ago
  It isn't, white and Asian students are equally represented- each are about 35% of the G&T cohort (while each are about 20% of the citywide cohort). But 60-70% of private school kids are white, compared to 5-10% per other groups. When G&T was re-established under Bloomberg, the implicit goal was to bring as many of those families from private to public as possible. Bloomberg supported charters for the same reason. White families and white wealth bring donation dollars, volunteer energy, community connections (most community board members are white), etc, etc. I understand the intuitive difficulty people have with the idea of differentiated classrooms. It's both deeply in the weeds from a teaching practice perspective and it also did not exist when today's parents were themselves in school, so few really understand what it looks like. Not to generalize but many Asian families are deeply upset about the removal of these programs. It will not impact the quality of their education but it will mean more integration for a deeply insular community. As an education councilmember what I heard first hand was as much a reflection of the latter as a false perception of the former.
  - andreskytt 5y ago
    The question is not what percentage they were of the cohort but how does that percentage compare with the overall makeup of the district.
jonahbenton 5y ago
[flagged]
chockablock 5y ago
Another NYC public school parent here. You are exactly right—-both G&T and bilingual programs are deliberately introduced to schools in gentrifying areas as a way to lure in wealthier (white) families that would otherwise go private. After a few years, assuming the program is successful in ‘integrating’ the school by making the wealthy/white families less scared of it, then the G&T/bilingual programs are phased out and moved into a new school so the process could be repeated. We saw that play out in school tours (two side-by-side 1st grade classes in the same school that were highly segregated by race) and decided we wanted nothing to do with it. Not sure why you’re being downvoted, this seems fairly common knowledge around these parts. Maybe it’s the Jordan Peterson dig?

rafale 5y ago

You certainly know the program better than I do. But my understanding is that white students are underpresented in G&T, the same as black and latino students. It's the asian students that are overrepresented. Reflecting their community culture that value academic excellence. I don't see a problem with that. If your argument was true, that the program is a vehicule to bring white families, then why is it being dominated by asian students?

jonahbenton 5y ago
It isn't, white and Asian students are equally represented- each are about 35% of the G&T cohort (while each are about 20% of the citywide cohort). But 60-70% of private school kids are white, compared to 5-10% per other groups. When G&T was re-established under Bloomberg, the implicit goal was to bring as many of those families from private to public as possible. Bloomberg supported charters for the same reason. White families and white wealth bring donation dollars, volunteer energy, community connections (most community board members are white), etc, etc. I understand the intuitive difficulty people have with the idea of differentiated classrooms. It's both deeply in the weeds from a teaching practice perspective and it also did not exist when today's parents were themselves in school, so few really understand what it looks like. Not to generalize but many Asian families are deeply upset about the removal of these programs. It will not impact the quality of their education but it will mean more integration for a deeply insular community. As an education councilmember what I heard first hand was as much a reflection of the latter as a false perception of the former.
- andreskytt 5y ago
  The question is not what percentage they were of the cohort but how does that percentage compare with the overall makeup of the district.

jonahbenton 5y ago

[flagged]

chockablock 5y ago

Another NYC public school parent here. You are exactly right—-both G&T and bilingual programs are deliberately introduced to schools in gentrifying areas as a way to lure in wealthier (white) families that would otherwise go private. After a few years, assuming the program is successful in ‘integrating’ the school by making the wealthy/white families less scared of it, then the G&T/bilingual programs are phased out and moved into a new school so the process could be repeated. We saw that play out in school tours (two side-by-side 1st grade classes in the same school that were highly segregated by race) and decided we wanted nothing to do with it. Not sure why you’re being downvoted, this seems fairly common knowledge around these parts. Maybe it’s the Jordan Peterson dig?