General Education Topik

[Bi_3]

Well, do they?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/ ... from-left/

[McParadigm]

Well, do they?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/ ... from-left/

Voices ranging from New York mayor Bill de Blasio to The Atlantic writer Jemele Hill have proposed radical changes to the way we approach the integration of our educational institutions, long considered to be a signature achievement of the civil-rights movement.

Bill de Blasio is weighing a proposal to halt most admissions to the city’s various “gifted and talented” programs, from specialized high schools such as Stuyvesant to special educational opportunities in ordinary public schools. A disproportionate number of Asian and white students are enrolled in gifted programs — the two groups accounted for 75 percent of enrollees last year — which, some say, creates a regime of de facto segregation in public schools. Maintaining strict racial quotas in public education is of such importance to the de Blasio administration that the mayor is earnestly considering removing race-blind programs that, at their best, are avenues to upward mobility for some of the poorest students in the state.

In fact, students born into poverty are around 12% as likely to be inducted into gifted programs as their wealthy peers, so gifted programs as currently designed mostly exist to exacerbate education inequity.

If the author feels that all of this is truly race blind, what do they or their audience believe is the primary reason for this:

while 17% of kindergarteners in the city’s public schools are white; 39% of kindergarteners in the city’s gifted and talented education programs are. By contrast, 65% of kindergarteners were Latinx or black; just 18% were offered seats in G&T programs and schools.

Also, how do conservatives not hear how brutally cynical this use of the school integration cause sounds to literally everybody around them?

[Bi_3]

Well, do they?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/ ... from-left/

Voices ranging from New York mayor Bill de Blasio to The Atlantic writer Jemele Hill have proposed radical changes to the way we approach the integration of our educational institutions, long considered to be a signature achievement of the civil-rights movement.

Bill de Blasio is weighing a proposal to halt most admissions to the city’s various “gifted and talented” programs, from specialized high schools such as Stuyvesant to special educational opportunities in ordinary public schools. A disproportionate number of Asian and white students are enrolled in gifted programs — the two groups accounted for 75 percent of enrollees last year — which, some say, creates a regime of de facto segregation in public schools. Maintaining strict racial quotas in public education is of such importance to the de Blasio administration that the mayor is earnestly considering removing race-blind programs that, at their best, are avenues to upward mobility for some of the poorest students in the state.

In fact, students born into poverty are around 12% as likely to be inducted into gifted programs as their wealthy peers, so gifted programs as currently designed mostly exist to exacerbate education inequity.

That's a pretty ridiculous statement and I know you know better.

If the author feels that all of this is truly race blind, what do they or their audience believe is the primary reason for this:

while 17% of kindergarteners in the city’s public schools are white; 39% of kindergarteners in the city’s gifted and talented education programs are. By contrast, 65% of kindergarteners were Latinx or black; just 18% were offered seats in G&T programs and schools.

I dunno, English proficiency? Parental involvement? Unaffordable daycare / pre-K? The existence of unequal outcomes does not mean the process is biased.

[McParadigm]

Well, do they?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/ ... from-left/

Voices ranging from New York mayor Bill de Blasio to The Atlantic writer Jemele Hill have proposed radical changes to the way we approach the integration of our educational institutions, long considered to be a signature achievement of the civil-rights movement.

Bill de Blasio is weighing a proposal to halt most admissions to the city’s various “gifted and talented” programs, from specialized high schools such as Stuyvesant to special educational opportunities in ordinary public schools. A disproportionate number of Asian and white students are enrolled in gifted programs — the two groups accounted for 75 percent of enrollees last year — which, some say, creates a regime of de facto segregation in public schools. Maintaining strict racial quotas in public education is of such importance to the de Blasio administration that the mayor is earnestly considering removing race-blind programs that, at their best, are avenues to upward mobility for some of the poorest students in the state.

In fact, students born into poverty are around 12% as likely to be inducted into gifted programs as their wealthy peers, so gifted programs as currently designed mostly exist to exacerbate education inequity.

That's a pretty ridiculous statement and I know you know better.

I am a product of a gifted student education program and yet I don’t, so maybe these programs aren’t all that great to start with.

You’d best explain it to me.

If the author feels that all of this is truly race blind, what do they or their audience believe is the primary reason for this:

while 17% of kindergarteners in the city’s public schools are white; 39% of kindergarteners in the city’s gifted and talented education programs are. By contrast, 65% of kindergarteners were Latinx or black; just 18% were offered seats in G&T programs and schools.

I dunno, English proficiency? Parental involvement? Unaffordable daycare / pre-K? The existence of unequal outcomes does not mean the process is biased.

How are parental availability and access to affordable pre-k/daycare not inequity problems? And why are these inequality of access problems so much more costly to people with certain skin colors than to others? Sounds like a problem calling for some real, good old fashioned social justice.

[Bi_3]

Well, do they?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/ ... from-left/

Voices ranging from New York mayor Bill de Blasio to The Atlantic writer Jemele Hill have proposed radical changes to the way we approach the integration of our educational institutions, long considered to be a signature achievement of the civil-rights movement.

Bill de Blasio is weighing a proposal to halt most admissions to the city’s various “gifted and talented” programs, from specialized high schools such as Stuyvesant to special educational opportunities in ordinary public schools. A disproportionate number of Asian and white students are enrolled in gifted programs — the two groups accounted for 75 percent of enrollees last year — which, some say, creates a regime of de facto segregation in public schools. Maintaining strict racial quotas in public education is of such importance to the de Blasio administration that the mayor is earnestly considering removing race-blind programs that, at their best, are avenues to upward mobility for some of the poorest students in the state.

In fact, students born into poverty are around 12% as likely to be inducted into gifted programs as their wealthy peers, so gifted programs as currently designed mostly exist to exacerbate education inequity.

That's a pretty ridiculous statement and I know you know better.

I am a product of a gifted student education program and yet I don’t, so maybe these programs aren’t all that great to start with.

You’d best explain it to me.

As you know, they exist to provide students who test as high performing a study path and environment not normally available in public schools.

https://www.nagc.org/resources-publicat ... ams-needed

They do not exist to exacerbate inequality.

If the author feels that all of this is truly race blind, what do they or their audience believe is the primary reason for this:

while 17% of kindergarteners in the city’s public schools are white; 39% of kindergarteners in the city’s gifted and talented education programs are. By contrast, 65% of kindergarteners were Latinx or black; just 18% were offered seats in G&T programs and schools.

I dunno, English proficiency? Parental involvement? Unaffordable daycare / pre-K? The existence of unequal outcomes does not mean the process is biased.

How are parental availability and access to affordable pre-k/daycare not inequity problems? And why are these inequality of access problems so much more costly to people with certain skin colors than to others? Sounds like a problem calling for some real, good old fashioned social justice.

Thanks for skipping the most obvious answer to your original question, but what you are talking about are not functions or results of GT programs but often results of the legacy of systemic racism. That does not invalidate the value of GT programs in public schools, but instead shows the value of properly funding education and subsidizing daycare costs. Again, like a broken record, these are independent of GT programs in public schools.

[McParadigm]

Well, do they?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/ ... from-left/

Voices ranging from New York mayor Bill de Blasio to The Atlantic writer Jemele Hill have proposed radical changes to the way we approach the integration of our educational institutions, long considered to be a signature achievement of the civil-rights movement.

Bill de Blasio is weighing a proposal to halt most admissions to the city’s various “gifted and talented” programs, from specialized high schools such as Stuyvesant to special educational opportunities in ordinary public schools. A disproportionate number of Asian and white students are enrolled in gifted programs — the two groups accounted for 75 percent of enrollees last year — which, some say, creates a regime of de facto segregation in public schools. Maintaining strict racial quotas in public education is of such importance to the de Blasio administration that the mayor is earnestly considering removing race-blind programs that, at their best, are avenues to upward mobility for some of the poorest students in the state.

In fact, students born into poverty are around 12% as likely to be inducted into gifted programs as their wealthy peers, so gifted programs as currently designed mostly exist to exacerbate education inequity.

That's a pretty ridiculous statement and I know you know better.

I am a product of a gifted student education program and yet I don’t, so maybe these programs aren’t all that great to start with.

You’d best explain it to me.

As you know, they exist to provide students who test as high performing a study path and environment not normally available in public schools.

https://www.nagc.org/resources-publicat ... ams-needed

They do not exist to exacerbate inequality.

Sorry, to clarify my point, I don't think that a cabal of Soros-funded cloak-wearing Eyes Wide Shut partygoers designed gifted programs as a means of suppressing the poor. I think that the principle impact of gifted programs on the inequity of our system is to exacerbate it significantly, not to help reduce disparity (as was implied by the article you posted). It’s the most pronounced result of their existence. A secondary impact is that it makes people like me.

If the author feels that all of this is truly race blind, what do they or their audience believe is the primary reason for this:

while 17% of kindergarteners in the city’s public schools are white; 39% of kindergarteners in the city’s gifted and talented education programs are. By contrast, 65% of kindergarteners were Latinx or black; just 18% were offered seats in G&T programs and schools.

I dunno, English proficiency? Parental involvement? Unaffordable daycare / pre-K? The existence of unequal outcomes does not mean the process is biased.

How are parental availability and access to affordable pre-k/daycare not inequity problems? And why are these inequality of access problems so much more costly to people with certain skin colors than to others? Sounds like a problem calling for some real, good old fashioned social justice.

Thanks for skipping the most obvious answer to your original question, but what you are talking about are not functions or results of GT programs but often results of the legacy of systemic racism. That does not invalidate the value of GT programs in public schools, but instead shows the value of properly funding education and subsidizing daycare costs. Again, like a broken record, these are independent of GT programs in public schools.

Which one was the most obvious answer?

[Simple Torture]

A secondary impact is that it makes people like me.

We already like you, McP.

[McParadigm]

A secondary impact is that it makes people like me.

We already like you, McP.

Thanks, ST. I just freehand drew this picture of us.

[Bi_3]

Sorry, to clarify my point, I don't think that a cabal of Soros-funded cloak-wearing Eyes Wide Shut partygoers designed gifted programs as a means of suppressing the poor. I think that the principle impact of gifted programs on the inequity of our system is to exacerbate it significantly, not to help reduce disparity (as was implied by the article you posted). It’s the most pronounced result of their existence. A secondary impact is that it makes people like me.

Go on.... My life experience is that GT programs segregated me from the black population of my high school, but the school board (highly progressive even in the early 90s) intentionally brought GT to that high school to raise test score averages to pretend the county had done something to help low income black kids instead of actually providing an educational environment to help low income black kids. That was not a feature of the GT program but some Ed major’s attempt to solve the problem of the education “gap” by changing the stats.

The actually question posed by the original article was about the trend towards segregation as a way to improve education for the black community. It’s a startling idea that might actually have merit.

[BurtReynolds]

Wtf

https://www.wsj.com/articles/for-sale-s ... 1572976621

colleges buy low-scoring SAT names from the College Board, and then encourage students to apply knowing they will reject them to boost their selectivity rating.

[B]

Why the fuck are there gifted program for kindergartners anyhow?

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[Rob]

Why the fuck are there gifted program for kindergartners anyhow?

This was a good question. I have 3 kids, youngest in Kindergarten now, so I've seen enough to know this shouldn't exist. Just keep your eye out for the one in a million Doogie Howser. Then just make sure the rest aren't pulling their pants down or wiping shit on something.

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[Bi_3]

Let's see.. shaming, counter-accusations, threats of mass quitting... yeah... this is a "news article" and not union bullshit:

https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2021 ... ilability/

[elliseamos]

Wtf

https://www.wsj.com/articles/for-sale-s ... 1572976621

colleges buy low-scoring SAT names from the College Board, and then encourage students to apply knowing they will reject them to boost their selectivity rating.

I'm sorry, this is news?

[simple schoolboy]

When the SF and NYC schools that previously had entrance exams suddenly end up with far more white students getting in via a lottery system, what do we take away from this?

[elliseamos]

When the SF and NYC schools that previously had entrance exams suddenly end up with far more white students getting in via a lottery system, what do we take away from this?

I'll need more context to give my opinion, do you mean city charter schools or state-city colleges?

[simple schoolboy]

When the SF and NYC schools that previously had entrance exams suddenly end up with far more white students getting in via a lottery system, what do we take away from this?

I'll need more context to give my opinion, do you mean city charter schools or state-city colleges?

Public High Schools that until now had test requirements for admission. Not charters.

[elliseamos]

When the SF and NYC schools that previously had entrance exams suddenly end up with far more white students getting in via a lottery system, what do we take away from this?

I'll need more context to give my opinion, do you mean city charter schools or state-city colleges?

Public High Schools that until now had test requirements for admission. Not charters.

Ah, the beautiful magnet schools. Got it. They shouldn't be around at all. I get the premise for them, but think they're just more of the problem.