Scrapping Gifted Programs in NYC Public Schools

Parents Forum
1

Just read this this morning. https://www.wsj.com/articles/mayors-diversity-panel-recommends-scrapping-gifted-programs-at-new-york-city-schools-11566863093?mod=hp_lista_pos1. Excerpts since there is a paywall:

"A diversity panel appointed by Mayor Bill de Blasio has called for New York City to stop using academic criteria to screen applicants for admission to public middle schools, and to phase out elementary gifted-and-talented programs that now require a test…

The panel wants to eliminate “exclusionary admissions practices,” such as using grades, test scores and auditions, for middle schools. It promotes “inclusionary” practices for particular offerings, such as dual-language programs and those designed to help at-risk students. It also wants to provide a moratorium on new screened high schools, while preserving programs that help vulnerable groups, such as schools for newcomers to the country. It calls for new admissions methods that aim to help high schools better reflect their borough’s demographics, and to scrap geographic zones as criteria for admission at the high schools."

Curious how NYC residents feel about this. I grew up in a Mid-Atlantic suburban school district that tracked students from kindergarten. On the other hand, I have resisted sending my own kids to “magnet” schools because I do believe there is value in attending school in a diversified environment.

2

I’m not from NYC, but I have two opinions. First, I think students should be placed in grades first by achievement level, then by age. This type of acceleration is far better than a “gifted” program. Many students learn quickly enough that they should be able to earn their undergraduate degree by the time they finish 12th grade, but they have to be unleashed and encouraged. The savings and additional earnings from getting the high school and college degree at the same time could easily top half a million per student, so this is an important objective.

Now for part two: Almost no where else in the country is the type of system that New York currently has allowed by the courts because of the disparate impact on non-Asian minorities. I think it should be, but it’s not. Everyone should have to follow the same set of rules. New York schools should have to be as crappy as everyone else’s.

3

Great! I used to care about these sorts of things. But now that my own children have enjoyed just about every advantage imaginable, I’m glad that it will be increasingly more difficult for smarter but poorer and hungrier children to compete with my own.

4

I disagree with achievement instead of giftedness being used for placement. Some students are bright and have parents who supplement their education. Others are gifted and need special treatment despite not having advanced as far. The gifted think differently than the rest of the students- their learning curve will be different and they can catch up. They deserve an appropriate education. Unfortunately their numbers are so small it is usually impractical for schools to give them what they need. Some students are gifted in only some areas, others are globally gifted.

I can see why NYC is concerned about its special schools. They don’t have enough for their gifted students and I suspect those who do not get into them do not get the appropriate education at the other schools because resources have been spent on the specialized schools.

Having diversity for the sake of “mingling with the masses” may not be best for the gifted student. Being in the same building with others from one’s neighborhood is great. But- it is detrimental to a student to have to sit in class and be totally bored because the pace is so slow for them. I also wonder about the focus of magnet schools because while they may be great for a specific area they will therefore spend less time on other areas. Well roundedness for children is better than just maximizing a talent. Giftedness is not an area- it is an overall ability that needs to be addressed for students just as the low end is addressed.

5

I would like to see fundamental taught for each grade level with teachers for half the day and voluntary classes on a more difficult level for the other half. I wouldn’t label them as gifted classes and anyone who can keep up is welcome to join them.

I fought with my public schools because they felt only gifted children could take the extra courses. I finally withdraw my kids, all of them and paid dearly for years for private schools. Every single one of my kids took AP courses, average 4+ on them and most of them were accepted to selective schools that neighbors’ gifted kids did not. So who are gifted? If the kids can do the work, and do it satisfactorily, why should they have to be deemed gifted to get the opportunity to take these special courses?

6

My D was in a gifted program in NYC until we moved and then in a gifted program in our new area until she graduated high school. I think such programs are important and should not be eliminated. First the specialized high schools were under attack, and not G&T programs that are already too few in number in NYC. De Blasio seems to have an issue with smart kids getting an appropriate education. He needs to work on improving low performing schools. This is not the way.

7

Look on the bright side. If DeBlasio implements this plan - and apparently he has the ability to do so without legislative approval - it should be a good shot in the arm to the struggling city Catholic schools and should further inflate the housing prices of the “near-ring” suburbs.

8

Thanks for posting – but unfortunately I think the lead paragraph of the article misrepresents the recommendation of the panel – which can be read here: https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/1c478c_f14e1d13df45444c883bbf6590129bd7.pdf

They don’t want to eliminate GT services (although they do want to redefine/reliable them) – but they are recommending changing the way such services are delivered and eliminating test-score based screening for such programs at the elementary and middle school level. Because those practices essentially set up barriers early on which tend to increase segregation. That is decisions get made based on how well a kid performs on a test given at age 5 or so that are self-reinforcing through the ensuing years.

9

A panel appointed by New York Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) to find ways to diversify schools in the nation’s largest system just came out with a surprising recommendation: eliminate gifted programs in the city’s public schools. The mayor, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, said he would take that suggestion under advisement.
The issue has been of concern for years in New York City, which has among the nation’s most segregated schools, with a lack of diversity extending to its gifted programs in the lower grades and to selective high schools that admit students based on a single standardized test score.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/08/27/nyc-school-diversity-panel-recommends-ending-gifted-programs-public-schools-one-member-explains-surprising-decision/

10

Riddle: When is gifted program not a gifted program? Answer: when it has been “redefined” to remove “barriers”.

11

It’s a tough situation. NYC has some of the best and some of the worst public schools in the nation. This is part of a larger proposed program to promote diversity in the public schools. They would like all schools in NYC to more or less, reflect the racial makeup of the city-wide public school population. Think of it as a 10 year plan. Soon districts will be re-zoned so that each individual school will reflect a representative racial makeup. Then, schools in your borough (there are 5 in NYC), will reflect the city’s racial makeup. Eventually all schools in the city will look alike demographically. It’s a 10 year plan. This will be more difficult in neighborhoods that are all more racially homogeneous. The theory behind this is that all kids will get the same education since the resources will, more likely, be more evenly distributed across the board and you won’t have a cluster of smart/affluent parents getting more resources for their schools only. They will, rather, likely "lift’ the resource allocation more equally as they are spread out more thinly among all the schools.

I guess the question, are talking about re-calibrating the schools demographics to ensure equal distribution of resources or as a general principal? My guess is we are talking about resources.

Imagine, for a moment, that each school had the exact same budget per student and all the same resources, with the existing racial distribution as it is now. What would the results look like?

Imagine, for a moment, that each school had the exact same budget per student and all the same resources, with a newly shuffled demographic mix. What would the results look like?

Is the only way to achieve equal distribution of city resources a re-shuffling of demographic percentages? Many think that’s the case.

The next part of the proposal, is by eliminating test or grade based gifted and talented programs at a school level this will prevent exceptions that siphon off more academically talented/prepared (and probably affluent) students and in some sense, re-segregate the school system. If you keep the talented programs in each school and have a two-tiered approach, you can still have your demographic re-shuffling, but enable more accelerated students to be in a more challenging environment in their assigned school.

As always, the Asian students are the monkey wrench in the racial, socio-economic calculations - they are high performing, but, in NYC, about 50% come from low-income households.

It’s interesting to note that the removal of many G & T programs in NYC by Bloomberg, in some sense, killed the pipeline for bright minority students to be academically prepared to pass the SHSAT.

12

If they stopped letting suburban parents call and berate school officials until they relented and let Junior into the G&T programs out here, I’d have a lot more faith in G&T classes.

13

The recommendations linked in post 8 look ambitious and touch everything from the screened schools to the G&T programs, but the proposal is just the latest squiggle in the now 60 year long struggle to “fix” the NYC schools. It will fail in its stated goals, just as every other attempt has over the decades. However, if implemented, it will roll back any progress made during the Bloomberg years.

The non-minority share of the NYC public school system is only approximately 30%, and consists almost entirely of low- and middle-income Asians all over the city, and low- to middle-income whites, many themselves recent arrivals from Eastern Europe, mostly in some pockets in the boroughs. Very few high income white or Asian students have ever been in NYC public schools.

When this 30% share is driven down to zero, the achievement gap will disappear. That might be the plan.

14

They tried to eliminate neighborhood schools and force integration in NYC back in the 60’s by introducing busing and it was not implemented due to widespread protest. Most NYC neighborhoods are homogeneous (mostly Asian, or mostly Hispanic, etc.) There is no way to draw district lines and make neighborhoods schools homogeneous. You want your kid to walk to the school around the corner and be with the kids who live on the same block.
The real solution is to make the quality of the education received at every school in NYC the same. Then you won’t have problems like parents lying about their address to get their child zoned into the “better” school or some elementary schools being “feeder” schools for the elite NYC high schools.

15

My NYC friends are dismayed and think this will result in middle-class flight back to the suburbs.

16

Here’s an interesting site:
https://www.vox.com/2018/1/8/16822374/school-segregation-gerrymander-map?fbclid=IwAR3H_fUe7hm2ju5vW3DjRRkT241CEam9r6wt0Ma-0Szo0aoS7OnsoPNGQEU

17

Rezoning won’t make a bit of difference in NYC, if the intent is racial integration. There is a reasonable amount of residential segregation by race, of course, as is common in just about every city in the United States. So, any attempt to diversify zoned schools will entail unpopular assignments to schools outside of the neighborhood.

But the real issue is that there simply are not enough non-minority students to “redistribute” within the NYC public system. There are only about 170,000 white students total in the entire 1.2 million student system. Almost as many are already in non-public schools, predominately Jewish schools. In fact, Jewish K-12 schools, which are 95% white and have been growing dramatically over the last two decades, now educate approximately 100,000 students in NYC.

The Catholic school system, which has been declining in enrollment for 40 years at least, is already majority Hispanic, and any way continues to “cream” the best of the Hispanic students (other than those who get into GT and screened high schools).

The suburbs, Jewish schools and certain Catholic schools (which these days rarely require that the student be baptized a Catholic) will simply absorb students who are redistributed out of currently desirable placements in NYC public schools.

The only group that does not have a ready outlet is the Asian student population. To the extent that the latest plan succeeds in displacing Asian students from neighborhood schools (largely in Queens and southern Brooklyn), we might see a large, independent Asian school system develop, or simply a repeat of the flight to the suburbs that took place from 1970 through the 90s.

Carranza spent his life in Tucson. He has no idea how NYC works, but he will find out.

18

Before NYC public schools gave free lunch to all students, weren’t something like 72% of the students from low-enough income households to get free or reduced price lunch?

19

Pretty predictable:

https://nypost.com/2019/08/28/gifted-and-talented-purge-will-spark-asian-exodus-activist/