Mamdani says he would phase out NYC gifted program for early grades
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Harrison Bergeron
==
"Having witnessed my own friends, I simply do not believe that people who can juggle exist."
.
Gifted kids exist. I see friends' kids who read at 4 and they absolutely do not need to be stuck in a class with kids who still chew on their toys. The fact that you have not seen those does not mean they do not exist.
As a second example, I was able to read before I was 4 and multiply 2-digit numbers before I was 5. Luckily schools did have programs that challenged me. I would have been much less lucky, had I been a kid in Mamdani's NYC...
Its worse than that; putting them in that class forces them into a situation where their only options are abject boredom (which kills motivation, drive, creativity) or to act out, because it is at least better than being bored.
At that point it doesn't really matter, because K is really about play and learning the conventions.
By the end of 2nd grade it was clear that they were bored out of their minds. So to private school they went.
For parents with kids that aren't motivated it's hard to understand what the fuss is.
But, the Left's problem is that instead of trying to raise everyone up they're bringing people down. It was that way in the USSR, and it's that way here. Where I used to live the Talented and Gifted program (which was state mandated) had a $1000 budget systemwide. The "equity" fund was almost a third of the budget. At that point why bother with public schools? It's taxation without representation.
Whether or not to cut gifted and talented programs is very much debated on the "left".
One analog in my area (Boston) is perhaps METCO, where ambitious students in impoverished districts can be bussed to wealthier suburban schools. It's fairly benign compared with the infamous forced bussing of the 1970s- a judge forced lower class black and white parts of the city to bus students to each other's schools in order to eliminate segregation- it caused riots. Sure there was racism, but the main complaint was that rich suburban towns were not included.
Another ongoing debate is over "charter schools"- where public funds are used for private schools that can be selective about their students. There are good arguments both for and against them. One against is that they can be for-profit even though they are not supposed to be. For example, they often pay rent to somebody- this never happens as far as I know for public schools.
what makes me question what you’re saying even more is i have right-wing friends who most certainly do not want more funding for any school programs, including gifted. and i have classical liberal friends who think we should give tax breaks for private schools for “gifted”.
This is a strawman, though it may not seem like one. I agree that much of the right wants less funding for public education in general, and/or wants more funding for parochial schools and the like. But that is not who I'm talking about.
Those on the right who support public education also support funding gifted/talented schools/programs, because they base it on 'merit' and you may have seen that word thrown around recently by that orange guy. G&T programs explicity fit into their policy and world view, albeit for all the wrong reasons.
> i have classical liberal friends who think we should give tax breaks for private schools for “gifted”.
Cool, but they're not 'left' by the American standards. Classical liberals are more akin to American libertarians in terms of beliefs/opinions. Which again, is not who I'm talking about.
Anyone who thinks money is the limiting factor in education is either delusional or is receiving a chunk of that money that never makes it into the classroom.
Countries all over the planet provide superior education to students for a tenth of the cost.
Your right wing friends are correctly but ambiguously stating that if we can’t have a gifted program at these funding levels, there will never be a gifted program at any funding level.
It’s not because he “works hard,” and I don’t tiger parent. There’s just smart kids and average kids and dumb kids.
My mom nearly fell out of her chair. What 3rd grade teacher has 3rd grade math problems they need a 3rd grader’s help with?!
My mom got me a math tutor literally the next day, and I’ve never been more thankful (in hindsight). That tutor focused on teaching me advanced math (for my age), and suddenly my behavior improved. Funny that.
So my recommendation would be, if possible, find a math tutor for enrichment. I don’t mean “start studying for the SAT,” so hopefully don’t take it that way. :)
Was the left operating well in missussippu prior to 2013?
All while still remaining the poorest state in the nation no less.
In large part due to the Literacy-Based Promotion Act, sponsored by state Republicans that got bi-partisan support except for a faction of state house Democrats that tried to kill the bill because they didn't come up with it.
It was so effective that the model was copied successfully by other states.
You could not have chosen a worse example to prove your point.
But, definitely evidencd of improvement.
This claim about the USSR seems strange to me.
In high school, I had a couple of classmates from the USSR and they had been attending advanced schools since childhood. They were brilliant mathematicians. The state-sponsored educational system had recognized their talents and lifted them up.
I understood the collapse of the Soviet Union to be a net loss for educational funding, but I am by no means sure of this.
I remember decades ago my undergrad statistics teacher pulling up some data on collegiate club (like chess and poker, not like ultimate frisbee) winnings in competition.
I forget what the point of the lecture was, something about data distribution types, but the takeaway was that Miami Dade Community college consistently punched above its weight class since it educated a population that was on average subject to more USSR style "identify those gifted in a niche and develop their skills" than the baseline.
That said, there's a reason those people were attending community college in Miami...
>an engineer or a scientist would earn not much more than a blue collar worker.
The blue collar trades were preferred because you had more opportunities to get stuff to barter, better still if your job involved going out and about and doing things, you could meet many people to transact with.
Right the USSR was famously known to not aggressively coach and foster young talent in math, physics, and chess. There's literally no prodigies from there.
Both US political parties have pushed for educational reforms that have resulted in this sort of accusation.
There was a long running idea on the right that faltering education was a national security threat, and naturally parents want their kids to have a decent education. Things changed a bit after George W. Bush's "No Child Left Behind" ended up extremely unpopular, but you still hear some of the same talking points.
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 more importantly, when I wanted to understand or ask about some existential question, my teacher didn't say "oh that's cute kid, don't worry about it, just go be a kid and play with your friends." They took me seriously, chatted with me through my questions, and treated me like I wasn't a complete idiot, even though I was a child. That made all the difference.
And even more importantly, asking those questions didn't make me a pariah; instead, the other kids had those questions too, and we all learned from each other and grew.
If this sounds a bit absurd, I assure you I knew it then; I literally wrote about it in my journal in second grade.
After witnessing my wife work as a para-professional with special needs kids on a volunteer basis, the biggest thing anyone could do to improve overall educational achievements is to get them the fuck out of "normal" classrooms. There is very little reason for a non-verbal fourth grader to be taking classes with fourth grade "peers". While their presence may engender some empathy in fellow students, it is often the biggest distraction in the classroom and schools don't have the desire or resources to actually address special needs children in a way to not be disruptive. And I'd extend this further. It would be far better for everyone in this country if the bottom of the bottom was left behind (from an education, not a safety net standpoint) and the average could advance in pace with the more advanced students. And I say this as a flaming leftist.
I have zero issues with additional funding being applied to help special needs children learn and adapt to the world as we have to experience it. But I have a major problem with the slowest of society dictating the educational attainment of the average (or above average) member of society. No Child Left Behind means we have to run at the pace of the biggest fucking moron in our class. It shouldn't just be exceptional children with engaged parents who are able to escape that.
I cannot believe NYT readers would fall for such partisan editorialising.
My perspective is that the mos important thing in the early grades are that kids are engaged and not being held back. But there are many ways to address this.
What we’re talking about is learning some things much earlier than peers, and not all kids can do that; there are some kids who are simply accelerated in terms of learning, and if “unfed” that drive can quickly die.
from my memory, my mom taught units on photography, civil rights history, problem solving, reasoning, creative writing, deconstructing things to make something new, etc. i think most, if not all, students are able to grasp those things, though maybe that's my bias as somebody who got that sort of teaching both at home and in public school. sadly, all the non-gifted students only got the rote lessons that prepared them for standardized testing, but i suspect average students would maybe enjoy more school more if they had a more gifted-like education. gifted kids aren't the only ones who get bored by school.
Not all 6 year olds are the same - and we do significant harm pretending it is so.
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.
N = 1, CA's GATE program in the 2000's changed my life. "Being special" was a powerful motivator for a younger version of myself.
>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?
N = 1, what I needed as a child was a more G&T version of CA's GATE. I responded best to competitive sports and long hours of math and science problems.
I won't comment on NYC politics or the article.
It's not only those who are failing that need help. (And I agree they shouldn't be treated as defects)
But gifted kids do exist, and they have all sorts of existential questions and concerns that other kids don't tend to worry themselves about. Unaddressed, these kids end up miserable, depressed, and anxious... which is why it's important to pay attention to them too.
Whether Kindergarten is the right age is a different question, but to imply that only those failing need help is simply untrue.
Individualized education would be ideal, but close to impossible, for obvious reasons.
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.
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.
To claim that gifted children cannot be distinguished from their peers at a very young age is flat out wrong.
But it probably isn't bad to put smart kids together with mentored kids, matching smart with rich is a good way to help both sides.
Ultimately this is a minor issue though. Nobody is voting for a mayor based on their view of a gifted student program.
Clearly there's a middle ground, but that doesn't mean the extrema don't need to be separated.
Whether Democrats will vote for someone because of anti-intellectualism is an open question, but it worked for Republicans, so it's feasible.
I (and who knows how many a kid) was bored out of my mind all of kindergarten and first grade since I was one of the few kids who could read, and our gifted program didn't start until 2nd grade (I think in 1st grade I tested reading at 7th-grade level?). It's gratuitous torture to mix kids of different ability levels - both for the competent and the incompetent kids.