> When we are calling for an end to "gifted" programs in New York, it is not because we "hate smart kids" but because we want resources to be evenly divided so that everyone can get a well funded well rounded education, not just the rich kids in gifted classes. This is not a single issue but is a larger component of an attempt to dismantle segregation in public schools.

Ok, then that's what you should ask for. Ask for a more even distribution of resources.

If you single out the elimination of a specific program as a proxy for what you really want, you shouldn't be surprised when the discourse fixates on your targeting that program -- especially when it's a program for gifted students. By doing that you've made it very easy for your opponents to portray you as someone who would rather bring all students down to the same level than allow differences in ability to be cultivated.

> If you single out the elimination of a specific program as a proxy for what you really want,

The problem is that in New York at least the gifted programs are the direct mechanism by which rich parents uphold the status quo of segregation. The gifted prgrams are not a proxy, they are a symptom. As I said elsewhere in this thread: we are looking for a fair allocation of resources to actually give schools the ability to meet every student where they are and to engage them wherever that is.

The fact that gifted programs would be needed at all is a failure of our public school system. Every school should have the resources to adequately engage and educate every student regardless of their academic starting point.

Aren't poorer Chinese students the ones that dominate various gifted programs throughout the city? Rich parents send their kids to private daycares and schools like Collegiate.

More funding doesn't solve the problem. If that were case, the whole country could have spent it's way out of special education. At an median of $24K per student, New York has plenty of funding. Kansas city once tried an unlimited funding model to disastrous results (https://www.cato.org/commentary/americas-most-costly-educati...).

Yes, but apparently that's "segregation". The notion is ridiculous. The gifted programs are open to any New Yorker, even poor first generation immigrants like the Chinese in Flushing, as long as they put in the effort to meeting or exceed the standards.

This is actually a great example of the flaw in the debate. NYC has a unique and byzantine school system that's unrecognizable to basically all Americans outside of NYC.

This means if you hear "eliminate this program because equity," and you grew up in the midwest where the gifted program didn't function at all like you describe or require much funding at all, this sounds completely nonsensical because we're not talking about the same thing.

I don't have an answer to this except that it's best discussed on a local case by case basis.

I was not in the gifted program but most of my friends and younger siblings were. I agree with this assessment. They had access to after school programs and opportunities that were not offered to the rest of us. Their classes gave a higher GPA for the same results in regular classes despite (in some cases) teaching basically the same thing as regular classes, from the same book. Regular classes were the same workload but less creativity, enthusiasm, and support.

I later found out that test scores didn't entirely determine placement. Many of my peers were put in the gifted program after a parent advocated for them.

So yes, I appreciate these efforts to equalize opportunity. I'd like that the lessons offered in gifted programs can be offered to all students

This is where I think things are kind to vary wildly between different regions and districts so we have to be specific make sure we are comparing apples to apples. A gift program like you describe “by name only” isn’t a gifted program at all, that doesn’t mean “real” ones don’t exist. It’s like saying the funding for baseballs is not producing any baseball players meanwhile they only use the baseballs for playing tennis.

Sure but the issues faced here in New York are not unique, just particularly visible due to the size. The systemically racist systems exist everywhere and I would be willing to bet money that in the majority of districts and regions where gifted programs exist will have absurdly low percentages of brown and black students. And again, that is not because brown and black students aren't as smart. The systems of this country deals them a bad hand before they even know they're playing the game in the first place.

How do you feel about gifted programs in school districts where black and brown student largely don't exist?

OR for that matter, how about the inverse?

I'm not sure if I agree with the premise that the gifted students keep all the resources to themselves. If anything they should require less mentoring, less discipling and their parents should be more likely to be involved financially and in PTA.

> and their parents should be more likely to be involved financially and in PTA.

And when gifted programs become screeners of affluence then there are going to be financially involved parents in the PTA which benefits the whole school. But if all of those parents end up at the "good" schools then those schools have considerably more funding (on top of the additional funding from the DOE) to allow them to actually educate their students. It is all a self reinforcing cycle that benefits a few and disadvantages many.

Now you are talking not only about a redistribution of taxed dollars but charitable time and donations from parents that want to give them to their children to less advantaged children.

Putting limits on how much a parent can help and support their child is a much more difficult ethical and political argument to make

The goal of a lot of the redistricting and ending of accelerated programs seems simple: put higher performing students in the same class as lower performing students. Then make the parents of the higher performing students responsible for everyone.

Do you think public schools are underfunded? Any chart I've seen has shown the opposite, if you compare our schools to other countries'.

Having been in public school for most of my life I can say unequivocally: yes. It is not uncommon for teachers to purchase books and classroom supplies out of pocket since there simply is not enough funding.

Most estimates I've seen of funding for New York students is $25k to $30k a year though. I would think that's more of a sign of incredible corruption and mismanagement and not that there isn't enough money to go around.

To compare, Stuyvesant High School, the best in NYC, is $18k per student.

I would argue the point that Stuyvesant is the "best" but I don't disagree with your point. The problem is that a lot of the money ends up in the schools with the rich kids and for a lot a lot of students and schools they never see anywhere near that type of money.

Stuyvesant, like most good schools, raises a good deal of private funds. That actually accounts for good deal of the difference in resources between schools.

I think it's a combination. School districts are funded exceedingly well in our country. School classrooms are funded poorly.

The money evaporates before it reaches them.

This statement is contradictory

>Now lets look at the second assumption, that the gifted programs provide a higher level of education. This is not true. What happens is that gifted programs get significantly higher funding than other schools and so the gifted programs can afford to give a good well rounded education, which is a good thing!

You can't have it both ways. Is the education better or not?

Yeah I tripped on my words there a bit. My point is that the gifted programs have what is considered the necessities of a good well rounded education anywhere in the world. The fact that only the gifted programs have that is the flaw.

In other words you're arguing it's zero-sum, as though gifted programs take up a sizable chunk of funding rather than, you know, the schools.

> as though gifted programs take up a sizable chunk of funding rather than, you know, the schools.

I am saying that. "Gifted" programs and the schools that house them eat up a sizable chunk of funding.

Then it's not enough to say it, show the numbers. Considering the tiny demographic it serves, I'd imagine the cuts on the basis of inequality are a convenient excuse to slash spending, and not increase it otherwise.

There's no relationship between gutting gifted programs and either alleviating inequality or improving outcomes of all other students. If you want to do the latter, that requires it's own intervention.

This basically apes the rhetoric of the right-wing on the part of social spending. "We can't afford it, it should be spent on other things". Same mentality.

A lot of this is a Google search away. Here's an article from vox that is well researched: https://www.vox.com/22841191/gifted-and-talented-education-p...

There's absolutely nothing in there about the cost of those programs, which is why you didn't bother to quote it. What there is: talk about under-representation in those programs. That's it.

It's puzzling why you won't lend credence to an important factor: poverty has cognitive consequences. Yet rather than trying to improve the lot of those students, you're fixated on taking things away. This is how socialists think: some people have it too good and need to be punished.

Yeah, it's sad that there's no way to signal boost this. There's no way to convince people on this board to understand what is going on in New York. When you say "gifted program" people think that they are giving the smart kids opportunities that challenge them, but in New York it's not that at all. The screening process happens primarily before kids step into a classroom for the first time, and the divide between kids who get in and ones who don't is not innate intelligence, but rather preparation. The G&T program is the means by which the most motivated parents build a system within a system in which they can have good classes for their kids while neglecting the rest of the students, covered by a thin veneer of supposed meritocracy.

Thanks for sharing this perspective.

I was wondering why it seems to be such a big topic for the US. Where I’m from, gifted classes are for 1% of the kids and about socializing and keeping them engaged - their life outcomes are not statistically likely to be better than the “normal” children either way.

What is the point of gifted programs where you are from if they confer no benefits to the children engaged in them?

It provides them with an environment where they can develop at their own pace, and socialize with other children who think alike, which might not happen with only regular classes, where being gifted can be a disadvantage. I believe the programs are usually not full-time, but an addition to normal school hours.

This, to me, seems very different from being a better path to success as it apparently is in the US, in some kind of segregated system where millions of children are enrolled, up to 15% in some states.

Most studies I've seen also show that over the long term, gifted education does not result in better life outcomes, and does not eliminate differences in background (like being poor vs rich).

I guess the problem is how the gifted programs are being executed rather than their existence then.

When I read "gifted programs" I certainly would think that race or social background has zero influence on acceptance (even though they do influence kids access to education before getting there).

Reading what you said it seems logical that removing these programs is overall a good thing. But the way I see it the discussion about supporting kids that are truly gifted shouldn't be dismissed.

Maybe the solution would be to actually replace that program with something that's not perpetuating this segregation.

Disclaimer: I don't live in the US, so take it with a big grain of salt :)

> But the way I see it the discussion about supporting kids that are truly gifted shouldn't be dismissed

Sure! Yes! We are looking for a fair allocation of resources to actually give schools the ability to meet every student where they are and to engage them wherever that is. All teachers want to be able to meet kids where they are, wherever they are, but they don't have the resources to.

You make many assertions and back none of them up with any evidence.

You assert that the programs exist to segregate the school, with no evidence.

You assert that more resources are spent on gifted programs without any evidence.

You assert that gifted program both do and do not provide better outcomes. Evidence is not needed here since these statements oppose each other.

The only "evidence" you present is your opinion, anecdotal evidence of what you believe you saw in attending a NYC school.