Putting aside a second the debate about diversity... gifted and talented admission tests at four years old strikes me as far too young. Having witnessed my own children and their peers grow I simply don't believe that passing a test at Pre-K is a useful marker of some innate talent, rather it's clued-in parents making sure their kid is able to jump through required hoops.
Bold move to take this stance when he would have caught very little heat for saying he wouldn't change anything. But I think he's right in that gifted education doesn't mean much in the earlier years. It mostly selects for children of means with anxious parents.
Yeah this is reasonable, they really shouldn’t sort kids for opportunities in early grades. Instructors shouldn’t have to focus on whether or not a kid needs more opportunity but on the kids who are falling behind; kids who are falling behind shouldn’t be treated as defects
I personally don't think that it is a big deal. Giving kids until 3rd grade to actually "settle" and demonstrate ability is a good idea. Equal opportunity until we can decide as a society who is eligible for "more practice".
Though, in reality, the rich and able will give their children more practice regardless, so they will reap more of the Gifted and Talented slots when the time comes anyways.
The weirdly feels like a "can you believe he said that" piece. But he's not wrong. Having a two tiered education system from kindergarden that favors one group over another does not lead to good educational outcomes across the board. Nothing wrong with gifted or AP programs, but when they start right away and seem to be favoring one group over another that's a problem.
Ultimately this is a minor issue though. Nobody is voting for a mayor based on their view of a gifted student program.
I was a profoundly gifted kid - taught myself to read just before I turned 2, was reading lord of the rings and the shannara books at 5, deathly bored in public school because my parents couldn't afford private.
To claim that gifted children cannot be distinguished from their peers at a very young age is flat out wrong.
I went through NYC's gifted program in early grades. I grew up on rent control and food stamps.
My closest school when I started, before the gifted program, was spending the majority of its resources on special ed programs and barely functional. The gifted program allowed me to attend much better schools.
The gifted program was also the basis of what allowed me to even interview to attend (and eventually test into) NYC private schools. Because of class I would not have had that opportunity otherwise. In fact, at first these schools didn't want to deal with me -- we had to be very persistent over a couple of years just to get me in.
Before the gifted program I was years ahead of my peers and barely getting an education in school. It wasn't without problems, but it definitely created opportunities I benefit from today that I otherwise would not have had access to.
Gifted Program is not just a cheat code for kids of parents with means. The parents of means are already sending their kids to private schools and gave up on the NYC public school system decades ago.
Smart kids can be a distraction as well. It certainly would have benefitted me to enter G&T at Kindergarten instead of 3rd grade. Much of my first grade was spent separate from the other kids doing 5th grade workbooks.
There’s not enough empathy for the gifted and talented weirdos who get bullied by their peers at a pre-school age for being differently abled. But I don’t know enough about the program in question to say whether or not it really was for gifted students, or just for those whose parents happened to pull some strings, regardless of the parent’s income or wealth status.
But what are the delivered value of G&T programs to students? I never saw anything material from CA's GATE in the 80's-90's. Is NYC's program different? They seem like (probably not, but it's a risk) smart people inventorying programs but more likely they are bureaucratic money pile movers.
In a bigger picture of something perhaps different, shouldn't we offer investment in the top ~1-3% of kids with alternative schools that don't hold back their potential that will likely ultimately benefit us? If we're not committed to developing, attracting, and retaining brains, then we're setting up a brain drain.
Paywalled. What does the NYC gifted program entail at those ages?
For myself growing up in rural middle America, gifted in elementary/Jr high school was just a special activity once a week, not really anything that separated me from my peers.
18 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 38.8 ms ] threadI cannot believe NYT readers would fall for such partisan editorialising.
I personally don't think that it is a big deal. Giving kids until 3rd grade to actually "settle" and demonstrate ability is a good idea. Equal opportunity until we can decide as a society who is eligible for "more practice".
Though, in reality, the rich and able will give their children more practice regardless, so they will reap more of the Gifted and Talented slots when the time comes anyways.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_(book)
Ultimately this is a minor issue though. Nobody is voting for a mayor based on their view of a gifted student program.
To claim that gifted children cannot be distinguished from their peers at a very young age is flat out wrong.
My closest school when I started, before the gifted program, was spending the majority of its resources on special ed programs and barely functional. The gifted program allowed me to attend much better schools.
The gifted program was also the basis of what allowed me to even interview to attend (and eventually test into) NYC private schools. Because of class I would not have had that opportunity otherwise. In fact, at first these schools didn't want to deal with me -- we had to be very persistent over a couple of years just to get me in.
Before the gifted program I was years ahead of my peers and barely getting an education in school. It wasn't without problems, but it definitely created opportunities I benefit from today that I otherwise would not have had access to.
Gifted Program is not just a cheat code for kids of parents with means. The parents of means are already sending their kids to private schools and gave up on the NYC public school system decades ago.
But what are the delivered value of G&T programs to students? I never saw anything material from CA's GATE in the 80's-90's. Is NYC's program different? They seem like (probably not, but it's a risk) smart people inventorying programs but more likely they are bureaucratic money pile movers.
In a bigger picture of something perhaps different, shouldn't we offer investment in the top ~1-3% of kids with alternative schools that don't hold back their potential that will likely ultimately benefit us? If we're not committed to developing, attracting, and retaining brains, then we're setting up a brain drain.
For myself growing up in rural middle America, gifted in elementary/Jr high school was just a special activity once a week, not really anything that separated me from my peers.