3 ms·

> How does any of that show a basis of racism? I also mentioned the district shut down that transportation program a few years after I stopped using it. Rather

> How does any of that show a basis of racism? I also mentioned the district shut down that transportation program a few years after I stopped using it. Rather unfortunate for everyone who came after me... Barriers: 1. Placing gifted programs in traditionally (rich!) white neighborhoods and not providing transportation for minority students to those schools even if a student qualifies to attend 2. Having a limited number of spaces in programs so that not everyone who qualifies to attend can attend The schools lack of funding is a separate issue, especially given the 16k spent per student each year. In regards to #2, if you run the math, if you do entry by qualification, poor students who may have passed the entrance qualifications, but not by the same margin as students from families with $$, will not get a spot. On the surface it sounds fair, the best get in, but in reality tests are always +/- a few points given day to day performance, and students who have worse home life (inadequate nutrition, lack of private educational resources, etc) already had to work harder to earn a passing score, so little Johnny who hasn't had breakfast in 2 years being 5 points behind Jennifer who has a private nanny with a degree in early childhood education, is not a fair comparison. But hey, limited spaces so... Lottery systems are slightly more fair, but they also hurt disadvantaged groups. The real solution is to build enough gifted classrooms, in enough areas of the city, so that anyone who qualifies can attend, full stop.

gnicholas 4y ago
Yours is one experience. When I grew up in Sacramento, the best gifted programs were not in the wealthiest/whitest areas. My high school was in an area that had large black and Ukranian immigrant populations, and it also had the IB program. Some of the kids in the IB program were from that area, but others came from other areas, mostly wealthier. Same for my middle school and elementary school. They were not in 'desirable' areas, and most people who attended were from more well-off areas.
- com2kid 4y ago
  Agreed, the location of gifted programs is different in different cities. Limited spaces and biased test results tend to be more universal problems. IMHO NYC's solution of opening up more spaces is the best way to go.
QuarterReptile 4y ago
>On the surface it sounds fair, the best get in, but in reality tests are always +/- a few points given day to day performance, and students who have worse home life (inadequate nutrition, lack of private educational resources, etc) already had to work harder to earn a passing score, so little Johnny who hasn't had breakfast in 2 years being 5 points behind Jennifer who has a private nanny with a degree in early childhood education, is not a fair comparison. The point of these tests isn't to make fair comparisons of students' whole lives. They are designed (and succeed to varying degrees) to make fair comparisons of a particular skillset across students, hopefully in a way that is highly correlated to the task at hand. In a finite world, that is how you make good use of scarce resources. Yes, this results in uneven outcomes. If we only have so much of a given resource (teacher time, facilities, learning resources, etc.) to dedicate, then putting the difficult but tailored material in front of Jennifer is a better use of resources than trying to accumulate enough second chances so that Johnny can eventually achieve escape velocity from his circumstances by happenstance.
- com2kid 4y ago
  > If we only have so much of a given resource (teacher time, facilities, learning resources, etc.) to dedicate, then putting the difficult but tailored material in front of Jennifer is a better use of resources than trying to accumulate enough second chances so that Johnny can eventually achieve escape velocity from his circumstances by happenstance. Except Jennifer is likely to do alright in life no matter what, while the opportunity afforded to Johnny can mean he escapes generational poverty. Or we could just build enough classrooms so everyone gets the best education possible. As a bonus, this is long term profitable because Johnny goes on to pay a metric ton of taxes that pay for his education many times over.

gnicholas 4y ago

Yours is one experience. When I grew up in Sacramento, the best gifted programs were not in the wealthiest/whitest areas. My high school was in an area that had large black and Ukranian immigrant populations, and it also had the IB program. Some of the kids in the IB program were from that area, but others came from other areas, mostly wealthier. Same for my middle school and elementary school. They were not in 'desirable' areas, and most people who attended were from more well-off areas.

com2kid 4y ago
Agreed, the location of gifted programs is different in different cities. Limited spaces and biased test results tend to be more universal problems. IMHO NYC's solution of opening up more spaces is the best way to go.

QuarterReptile 4y ago

>On the surface it sounds fair, the best get in, but in reality tests are always +/- a few points given day to day performance, and students who have worse home life (inadequate nutrition, lack of private educational resources, etc) already had to work harder to earn a passing score, so little Johnny who hasn't had breakfast in 2 years being 5 points behind Jennifer who has a private nanny with a degree in early childhood education, is not a fair comparison. The point of these tests isn't to make fair comparisons of students' whole lives. They are designed (and succeed to varying degrees) to make fair comparisons of a particular skillset across students, hopefully in a way that is highly correlated to the task at hand. In a finite world, that is how you make good use of scarce resources. Yes, this results in uneven outcomes. If we only have so much of a given resource (teacher time, facilities, learning resources, etc.) to dedicate, then putting the difficult but tailored material in front of Jennifer is a better use of resources than trying to accumulate enough second chances so that Johnny can eventually achieve escape velocity from his circumstances by happenstance.

com2kid 4y ago
> If we only have so much of a given resource (teacher time, facilities, learning resources, etc.) to dedicate, then putting the difficult but tailored material in front of Jennifer is a better use of resources than trying to accumulate enough second chances so that Johnny can eventually achieve escape velocity from his circumstances by happenstance. Except Jennifer is likely to do alright in life no matter what, while the opportunity afforded to Johnny can mean he escapes generational poverty. Or we could just build enough classrooms so everyone gets the best education possible. As a bonus, this is long term profitable because Johnny goes on to pay a metric ton of taxes that pay for his education many times over.