
Desegregation Plan: Eliminate All Gifted Programs in New York - colanderman
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/nyregion/gifted-programs-nyc-desegregation.html
======
JumpCrisscross
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
> 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_IRmST0zFCtdok10VnSBMMJ6Rv...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I_IRmST0zFCtdok10VnSBMMJ6RvOPV-Z/view)

~~~
esotericn
> 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.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
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.

~~~
malandrew
Ultimately so much of success comes down to culture and values and this is why
you see groups such as Asians, Jews and Mormons succeed. No amount of programs
to try and achieve equitable outcomes will overcome what can be achieved due
to culture and values.

~~~
rtmaximo
I'm perplexed thinking why you were downvoted. Do your downvoters think that
our genetics determine most of the outcomes?

Also, b4 anyone claims it, wealth does play a role, but looking at how lottery
winners fare, I would stick with culture and values having a more fundamental,
causal impact.

~~~
malandrew
My guess is that the existence of groups that have an excellent track record
or producing highly successful individuals creates bursts the privilege
narrative and causes cognitive dissonance and downvoting.

Jews were slaughtered by the millions in Europe and had most of their
possessions and capital stolen from them and yet after their ordeal was over,
they recovered and many built all that they had lost again from the ground up,
many of them many times over. Plus, look at the number of noble prize winners,
20% of whom have been Jewish.

The Chinese came over to the West coast in the US and were the very definition
of a marginalized community, yet they've done remarkably well. Those that have
time to apply the strong values around work and building up intergenerational
wealth in a country that respects property rights have absolutely flourished.
These days, many of those that aren't well off are typically those that are
recent immigrants that fled a countries where they did not have the
opportunity to build wealth so they are starting again from the bottom.

Mormons were persecuted and moved westward trying to find a place where they'd
be left alone and they've done remarkably well for themselves in and around
Utah.

It goes beyond those groups. The Quakers in New England did well. Many of the
Italian and Irish immigrants that came to the US and settled in the Northeast
United States have done quite well for themselves despite being second class
citizens in the US upon their arrival. One of the best examples showing that
culture and values matter is that black immigrants out-earn US-born blacks.

Culture and values matter. It's what leads parents to have books in the house,
what leads them to get their kids reading books, what leads them to be
involved in their children's schooling, what leads them to join the PTA, what
leads them to teach their kids about money and savings, what leads them to
maintain a nuclear family instead of splitting up into single-parent
households, what leads them to teach pro-social pro-cooperation values like
not coveting what others have, forgiveness and hard work, and lastly what
leads them to eventually have families of their own and pass along all the
culture and values to their kids that their parents taught them. Rome was not
built in a day.

Yes, wealth plays a role, but something lead to that wealth creation in the
first place and lead to that wealth persisting across generations instead of
it all being gone by the third generation that inherited it. Plus, most of the
wealth held by individuals in the groups above weren't earned all by one
massively successful individual. Most of it was build upon incrementally by
each generation that passed along not only wealth, but the culture and values
that built that wealth and that will allow that wealth to be built into an
even larger pot for the next generation.

------
anonymousiam
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.

------
marmada
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
Crabs in the bucket culture.

------
rayiner
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.

------
m0zg
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.

------
bradleyjg
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
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
> 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?

------
hogFeast
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).

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

~~~
pacbard
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/delibe...](https://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/6-legacy/deliberate-
speed.html)

~~~
ardit33
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
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
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.

------
smudgymcscmudge
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
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
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.

------
malandrew
> 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...

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

------
dragonwriter
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.

------
mjfl
How could anyone possibly support this policy?

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
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.

~~~
RhysU
> 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
> 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_wha...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does)

------
supernova87a
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. "_

------
sunstone
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.

------
fargle
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
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.

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

~~~
UnpossibleJim
It's the premise of Harrison Bergeron. Put everyone at the lowest common
denominator to make society truly equal.

