Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is another thread where people pretend they dont understand context.
Quote:
De Blasio only said of the report Monday, “Every child, regardless of ZIP code, has the right to attend a school where they can thrive.....................When you have over 35% of your students be designated as gifted and talented, we need to bottle the water we’re drinking and ship it all over the place
By no definition is 35% of the population gifted, either the test is to easy, or kids with money are paying previous test takers to coach them, and its clear which one it is.
Sigh..... yes, it is more than possible for 35% of the students assigned from an area (in New York City, a zip code) to be gifted if that area is a high socioeconomic area. In the greater Northern Virginia area there were schools where 25-40% of the kids were deemed gifted and the qualifications to be designated gifted was scoring in the 98th percentile or above on standardized testing designed to identify giftedness without racial or cultural bias, no exemptions. There were also schools in the area where less than 3% qualified, even when the qualifications were lowered to 85th percentile if supplemented by other “evidence” such as teacher recommendations. Those schools were, surprise, surprise, Title I schools.
Parents matter when it comes to student outcomes. They matter for the genes they pass on to their children, they matter for the way they nurture or don’t nurture those children. There is no amount of effort by the schools or the community that can truly equalize or overcome the impact of that effect, except in rare cases.
To the charge of test prepping accounting for test scores.... if the kid is intelligent enough to be able to get that score up high enough with hard work to jump over the gifted bar, they are towards the top of the upper intellectual quartile anyway. No amount of prepping and hard work can get a kid naturally below the 85% to test at the upper 95th percentile. The kid managing to get over the gifted bar can benefit from more challenging curriculum anyway, if we really are about meeting student needs as opposed to checking blocks on some cultural agenda.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Sigh..... yes, it is more than possible for 35% of the students assigned from an area (in New York City, a zip code) to be gifted if that area is a high socioeconomic area. In the greater Northern Virginia area there were schools where 25-40% of the kids were deemed gifted and the qualifications to be designated gifted was scoring in the 98th percentile or above on standardized testing designed to identify giftedness without racial or cultural bias, no exemptions. There were also schools in the area where less than 3% qualified, even when the qualifications were lowered to 85th percentile if supplemented by other “evidence” such as teacher recommendations. Those schools were, surprise, surprise, Title I schools.
Parents matter when it comes to student outcomes. They matter for the genes they pass on to their children, they matter for the way they nurture or don’t nurture those children. There is no amount of effort by the schools or the community that can truly equalize or overcome the impact of that effect, except in rare cases.
To the charge of test prepping accounting for test scores.... if the kid is intelligent enough to be able to get that score up high enough with hard work to jump over the gifted bar, they are towards the top of the upper intellectual quartile anyway. No amount of prepping and hard work can get a kid naturally below the 85% to test at the upper 95th percentile. The kid managing to get over the gifted bar can benefit from more challenging curriculum anyway, if we really are about meeting student needs as opposed to checking blocks on some cultural agenda.
Great explanation of how social factors can create pockets that do not follow a more general distribution.
Heck, even in the area I live in, the nice little subdivisions near some of the tech employers are teeming with people with advanced degrees in tech fields and their children are at the math competitions, the summer science camps and so forth....they are not at the basketball and soccer camps. (The most common delineation between the two groups is which are recent immigrants on tech visas.)
Public schools in the area are excellent, at graduations you'll routinely see students headed off to top 10 schools across the country, many with robust scholarships.
It is, but our constitution says we dont treat rich people or white people better than we would poor people or people of color.
If you are referring to the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, you may want to ask the Supreme Court what they think about it, because....
they ruled in the U of M law school case that if a state has a "compelling government interest" to deny equal protection of the law, then it's perfectly OK.
In Kelo v New London, they ruled that if there is a "compelling government interest" to ignore the 5th Amendment, then doing so is perfectly OK.
Turns out, a "compelling government interest" is a commonly occurring justification to ignore, violate and trample on the Constitution any time the government wishes to do so.
You may want to avoid putting too much faith in the most ignored and violated document in history.
My oldest went through the NYC public schools, and my three younger ones were in elementary school in the city. Here's my two cents based on my experience.
The best thing New York City could do for the public schools is deal with the kids with behavioral issues in the classroom. Three of my four kids were in gifted programs. For the most part there was nothing particularly gifted about them, as far as curriculum went. The main difference between their classes and the 'gen ed' class that my other child was in, was that the gifted classes didn't have any kids who made it difficult for the teacher to maintain control of the classroom.
By contrast there were two children in my one son's class who were disruptive. One was extremely violent; punching kids, stabbing one with a pencil, overturning desks, etc.. The other, I don't think, had any particular disorder, she would just get up and leave the classroom. Others were always unprepared and hadn't done their homework. After repeated requests to move him to another classroom, which were denied ("then we'd have to move everyone who asked"), we pulled him out of school and I homeschooled him for two years. Thank heaven we were in a position for me to be able to do that.
After moving to NJ, with some of the top schools in the nation, the first thing I noticed was that the kids who had ODD or ADHD had paraprofessionals in the classroom with them. What a difference. The other thing was that NONE of the kids were acting up to the point of disruption or coming in without homework done on a consistent basis.
NYC should take some of their millions of dollars spent on education and set up classrooms equipped to deal with kids that make it impossible for others to learn. Then they need to ignore the demographics.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 22 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,550 posts, read 16,536,658 times
Reputation: 6033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1
Sigh..... yes, it is more than possible for 35% of the students assigned from an area (in New York City, a zip code) to be gifted if that area is a high socioeconomic area. In the greater Northern Virginia area there were schools where 25-40% of the kids were deemed gifted and the qualifications to be designated gifted was scoring in the 98th percentile or above on standardized testing designed to identify giftedness without racial or cultural bias, no exemptions. There were also schools in the area where less than 3% qualified, even when the qualifications were lowered to 85th percentile if supplemented by other “evidence” such as teacher recommendations. Those schools were, surprise, surprise, Title I schools.
Parents matter when it comes to student outcomes. They matter for the genes they pass on to their children, they matter for the way they nurture or don’t nurture those children. There is no amount of effort by the schools or the community that can truly equalize or overcome the impact of that effect, except in rare cases.
To the charge of test prepping accounting for test scores.... if the kid is intelligent enough to be able to get that score up high enough with hard work to jump over the gifted bar, they are towards the top of the upper intellectual quartile anyway. No amount of prepping and hard work can get a kid naturally below the 85% to test at the upper 95th percentile. The kid managing to get over the gifted bar can benefit from more challenging curriculum anyway, if we really are about meeting student needs as opposed to checking blocks on some cultural agenda.
you cant define gifted as the top 2 to 5 %( or IQ Of 120/130 and above) and then say 40% of the population can be gifted in a given area. That just isnt true and im not sure why you think it is.
As for test taking, You absolutely can be taught to ace a test, especially if you have seen versions of the test. Clearly if you are allowed to retake the test or have the money to study with someone who has, you will do better than those who havent. So those few extra points from high Q but not gifted students that get them over the mark matter.
So while they could indeed benefit from the harder curriculum, the poor kid with the exact same IQ doesnt get the chance simply because they couldnt afford a tutor to get them the extra points to pass. Or their parents dont have the money to pay for an appeal like in states like Virginia, which you referenced and has its own problems.
you cant define gifted as the top 2 to 5 %( or IQ Of 120/130 and above) and then say 40% of the population can be gifted in a given area. That just isnt true and im not sure why you think it is.
As for test taking, You absolutely can be taught to ace a test, especially if you have seen versions of the test. Clearly if you are allowed to retake the test or have the money to study with someone who has, you will do better than those who havent. So those few extra points from high Q but not gifted students that get them over the mark matter.
So while they could indeed benefit from the harder curriculum, the poor kid with the exact same IQ doesnt get the chance simply because they couldnt afford a tutor to get them the extra points to pass. Or their parents dont have the money to pay for an appeal like in states like Virginia, which you referenced and has its own problems.
Lower income whites and Asians still test higher on average. Try again.
They should just say that every student passes with an A and all performed the exact same.
It appears that is the end goal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
