> It worked well, in my opinion at least, and the number of complaints and straight up threats because kids would learn things "they shouldn't be" was just… insanely frustrating. .... Now in order to keep schools paying for our services, every kid is banded into a range based on their grade
This sentiment that "they shouldn't be" learning advanced things is not an equity argument—it's probably the kids' OWN parents complaining! I certainly agree that the equity-based shutdowns in highly-progressive cities are a problem, but that's really a very limited case; this thread is really about an entirely different phenomenon.
Yes, some of these were shut down. It wasn't because of "equity". It was because of something called "budget cuts."
"NYC to eliminate gifted and talented school program that opponents say segregated students"
"this new, equitable model"
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/08/us/new-york-gifted-and-talent...
And indeed, the CNN article is the only actual reporting claiming that NYC was eliminating this program.
You would think that something of this magnitude would have been reported in the hometown paper if it were true...But the NYT reports that NYC actually expanded the program by over 1100 seats...(https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/14/nyregion/nyc-gifted-talen...)
"instead implement an accelerated instructional model in Fall of 2022 that will serve all approximately 65,000 kindergartners"
"Officials plan to train all 4,000 kindergarten teachers in this accelerated learning instruction"
The examples I've seen, in New York, Seattle, and LA, all cited equity as the reason.
Edit: I'm responding here to the comment "It's easier to keep the top kids down than it is to lift the bottom kids up."