<p>@Periwinkle - when you support a blind lottery at age 4, I have to ask, do you support splitting kids into honors math and normal math down the road? Anotherwards, would you support differentiation at age 4 even if the test were definitive?</p>
<p>@bostdad2, yes, I think there is a point at which it is appropriate to introduce tracking. Sixth grade or so would be an appropriate time to start, in my opinion. European systems which do track students into different streams have traditionally separated students at about that age. </p>
<p>HOWEVER, any placement decisions should be take all circumstances into consideration. In the Boston area, for example, there’s the Russian School of Math. If parents have sent their children for extra math instruction to the RSM, those kids may do better on a math placement test, because they’ve had more instruction. Should they be able to bump out kids who may be equally or more talented, but haven’t been hothoused? No. </p>
<p>Parents and students should be able to request placement into higher or lower tracks. (In my dream world, the honors track would not be watered down–that is, you can be placed into a higher track, but you also have to keep up.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you mean, if there were a definitive test for four-year-olds, would I support tracking in preschool?</p>
<p>No. Placement into different tracks determines educational outcomes. The truly gifted will always be outliers. They do not need test prep. They also might do really loopy things at four years old, which could depress their scores. How would you be able to know the test were definitive? If you put the kids who score the highest on a particular day in the “honors kindergarten,” then tell them they’re the best and smartest, and give them more interesting instruction and more opportunities, for years on end, they may score better on some test at the end of high school. However, did you happen to choose the smartest children at 4, or did you create the winners through thirteen years of forced cultivation? </p>
<p>I object to the idea of a public school system cooperating in creating an educational aristocracy in preschool, based on a gatekeeping exam for which parents can prep their children. I’m not a New Yorker, so I’d ask, why are spots at such schools so limited? Why should the district try to distinguish between four year olds, rather than offer a strong curriculum at every school?</p>
<p>@neato- sorry about that- not sure WHY I thought you were a guy! Look into College assistance counsellors online- they need not be next door- the good ones will skype- if your district is bereft of help they are a good resource</p>
<p>Actually that is also the flaw in the SSAT! Students score a lower percentile ranking as if math is a weakness ( even compared for grade)! However many students get more of the advanced questions correct because they have been prepped or exposed to this math not because they are more talented mathematically! It is an iniquitous exam which allows for a skewing of % tile . An exam should only have topics graded for appropriate grade level and if the higher grade questions are answered correctly or incorrectly they should not count since this gives the exposed child an unfair "extra credit " and leverage thus skewing the percent. I am extremely surprised at the administrators of the exam. It’s very obvious that the scores reflect exposure rather than aptitude . The SSAT becomes an achievement test!</p>
<p>The upper track in a good private middle school in 8th grade will include geometry. Some students will get into trigonometry or beyond.</p>
<p>I don’t live in New York, but I live in a different city and I think the school assignment system in any urban school district is a nightmare. Where I live there’s a complicated system that’s partially preference-based and partially neighborhood-based. People want “neighborhood” schools in concept but when it comes down to it they would often prefer a school in a different neighborhood that offers a different program, has better test scores, etc. School assignments are a mess and I don’t expect them to improve any time soon.</p>
<p>However, I don’t agree with New York’s approach to the problem. I think kindergarten is far too young to start tracking kids. In our district they start placing kids in G&T in 3rd grade, and each middle school offers curriculum for students in G&T. It’s what happens at the high school level that tells me that New York’s system is a problem. We have one high school for high performing students that has test-based admissions. The most motivated/brightest/successful students end up at that school, to the detriment of every other high school in the district. So, if you don’t want your child to attend that particular school (or they don’t get in), you have some really sub-par high school options. I think this outcome is inevitable at least to some degree when these test-based schools are in the mix, and in New York the whole system is adversely affected by the existence of test-based programs all the way down to the kindergarten level.</p>
<p>@Periwinkle, thank you for a thoughtful reply. </p>
<p>Your comments seem to assume the “gifted” is purely a DNA issue - you are born with it or not. I think it is about half DNA and half how you are raised. And early childhood may be the most important time for that, for example Montessori makes a big impact. I think reading nightly with your child or enrichment programs like Russian Math and music actually physically improve the mind, and that “hothousing” as it were makes a permanent impact on the child and is changing the mind for the good. And so, if I had only one spot to offer to twins, and one had taken years of Russian Math and scored better on the math test, I do think that is appropriate to use the test to choose, because there is a real difference in the child by that age, even if there was no DNA difference at birth.</p>
<p>As to when to track, my personal experience is that by grade 3 it is pretty evident who the gifted kids are but the schools just do not have the resources to do anything about it. “They don’t need the help” is the common refrain - a spiteful attitude in my view. It is a cruel incarceration to place them into a classroom of 24 with a beleagured teacher who tells them to stop fidgeting and pay attention to infantile material or sends them in a corner to read alone all day because they are ahead of the class. These days our public system emphasizes “closing the achievement gap” to an extreme.</p>
<p>My daughter, who unbenownst to us was suffering from a crippling medical issue, was sent through a battery of tests a few years ago to test her IQ. It took hours. At the end the psychologist came out and said “It’s what we thought. She’s a genius and the school needs to work with her, not against her.” As he went through the test results (she processes information a bit differently than “listen to lecture, memorize, regurgitate”) he mentioned there were two types of IQ tests: </p>
<ol>
<li><p>one that could be learned and was known by professionals as a surburban test because children who score high tend to live in households where they are exposed to a wide variety of activities (literary, arts, educational, etc.) and where they have access to proper nutrition.</p></li>
<li><p>that can’t be learned and tend to be more innate: spacial relationships, memory, etc.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>So one could consider that IQ is part nature, part nurture - with the latter having a huge impact on the former.</p>
<p>The problem with public (and sometimes private) education is that it fails to take into account different learning styles. Some students are tactile, some are auditory, some are visual learners, etc. My husband is auditory and visual. I’m tactile - can’t figure many things out if I’m not touching and manipulating them. Math makes more sense when I’m doodling. Likewise my oldest is tactile and auditory - would memorize her lines and everyone else’s along with dance steps in the annual community theater productions. Has a good ear for accents and excelled on music but began to soar once introduced to ceramic arts. Sitting at a potter’s wheel was like a day at a spa. My youngest is visual and auditory but not as much tactile. Can play music on the piano once she’s heard it and good at languages, but began to excel when introduced to photography and film arts. A day at a spa for her was spending all her free time shooting music videos for a local production company.</p>
<p>IQ building starts with recognizing the best way to “deliver the nutrition.”</p>
<p>Bostdad2, I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph. It’s also possible for kids who are above grade level to be required to tutor their peers, during class time. After all, “they don’t need the help”–and proficient scores on the state tests are all-important. This practice also builds up resentment in other students toward the student-tutors. </p>
<p>Nature, nurture? That debate will never end. It’s possible to blunt the desire to learn. Encouraging students to regard their teachers as opponents, the schoolroom as a prison, academic material as boring, and homework as pointless go a long way toward teaching students not to respect school. </p>
<p>I stand by the hothousing remark, though. The school curriculum is not overwhelming. There is no need to drive children to outstrip their peers. Childhood should not be drudgery. We are adults for a long, long time. We are children for such a short period of time. We only have one year to be eight years old. A child experiences the world as a child. We should respect that. </p>
<p>It doesn’t have to be drudgery. It’s great to offer enrichment. It’s great to encourage children to follow their interests. If a child has an interest in meteors, for example, visiting museums, reading books, looking for more information about meteors and space and geology is wonderful. If a child the same age is not interested in meteors, though, forcing him to memorize facts about meteors, when he could be pursuing other interests, seems to be cruel to me. Even if it’s on a placement test.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why is there only one spot? Why is the interesting curriculum only offered to a select group of kids? Remember, in this case we’re speaking of public schools. If X students qualify for the gifted program, why aren’t there X spots available? If the measured accomplishments of the young students increase, why can’t the spots for “gifted” students increase? Why must the supply be limited? The main costs are fixed–it costs no more for a teacher to teach students interesting things than things those students have proven they don’t need, surely? </p>
<p>I do believe in human potential. The kid who spends too much time cramming for tests may be floored by an interview, especially if the interviewer asks him, “what do you like to do for fun?” There really are teenagers who can’t answer that question.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is my thought, too, Periwinkle, every time I read debates like these or see another documentary about the failure of public schools. We know how to make successful schools; why aren’t we making more of them? </p>
<p>As a community college teacher, I spend hours each term remediating kids who have been passed through high school without ever learning to write a coherent sentence, formulate a thesis statement, or organize even a basic five-paragraph essay. But here’s the thing: those kids CAN be remediated. I’m endlessly amazed when they bring me an essay they’ve written for another teacher, even a semester later–and I see how much they’ve accomplished in a matter of weeks. They’re not perfect writers, but they make enormous leaps. </p>
<p>I have a child who had what I’m sure would have been a diagnosed learning disability had he been a school. He couldn’t spell anything (I’m being quite literal here) until he was in sixth grade. Now he’s getting straight A’s, and his spelling is–well, almost perfect.</p>
<p>Human potential is endless. Human intelligence is fluid. I don’t want a European style system deciding that my child has to learn a trade rather than get a masters degree when he’s 3 or 5 or 12 or 18. What would happen if we treated every child as if that giftedness was latent within?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>@Periwinkle - you make a good case that this really is the core issue. If parents could be assured that appropriate schooling were available down the road, they would not push their toddlers in the negative ways as described in the articles (the non-constructive side of hothousing as you eloquently outlined and I agree does exist in some). </p>
<p>The USA already pays far more per pupil than almost every other industrialized nation for K12 education. While I do not envy public school teachers, they do hold enormous union power that can be used to block reform and demand further benefits. So… how to reach that goal of “just right” instruction, without spending even more than today in total? </p>
<p>In the end I could not imagine such reforms happening fast enough to affect my kids, and ended up with private schools (at great expense - but you know all that!).</p>
<p>The AFT’s publication, The American Educator, is full of good, practical, research-based ideas for reform. Here’s this month’s issue.</p>
<p>[AFT</a> - A Union of Professionals - American Educator, Current Issue](<a href=“http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/]AFT”>American Educator | American Federation of Teachers)</p>
<p>I also think it’s important to determine whether teachers are truly lobbying for further benefits, or simply–in an era of skyrocketing health costs–asking to maintain some semblance of the benefits they once had. In my state and local community, both our college and high school teacher’s benefits have been dramatically reduced over the past several years, as they have been everywhere. The costs of those reduced benefits, however, have increased at an alarming rate.</p>
<p>Sorry, don’t want to get off topic–but I’m on a bit of a mission these days to point out that teachers are not the greedy ones in this scenario. Somehow the health care industry just floats along blamelessly while those of us who’ve had our salaries frozen for years and our benefits steadily reduced regularly get blamed in the media for robbing the system and not caring about the children we teach.</p>
<p>And (anticipating the reasonable retort that I’ve just said in an earlier post that kids get passed along in a system that doesn’t encourage them to work to their full potential), I’ll point to the parent who, my first year teaching, called and offered me Red Sox tickets if I’d pass his kid who “doesn’t really need English 'cause he’s going to join me in the family business.” </p>
<p>Most of the teachers I know would jump at the chance to teach in the kind of school Periwinkle hopes for. And I think reform IS happening, at least at the elementary level, even in my tiny working class town. I like what I see in my youngest child’s class–good core reading and math curriculum with lots of individualization through centers and other independent activities. My kid’s teacher is always talking to me, when I volunteer, about new ideas she has for keeping her brightest students learning and engaged while the others are still doing their daily work. There has been a real revolution in the approach to academics at the school in the past several yeasr, brought on quietly but steadily by the new teachers who have been gradually replacing the old guard, and the old guard that have always been open to new ideas that help their students learn better.</p>
<p>Mind you, I homeschooled my older kids for years because of what was going on in our public school, so I’m sympathetic to the horror stories. I’m just optimistic about what the future holds, despite state mandates and budget cuts, because of what I see going on in those primary and preschool classrooms–just hope it will trickle upward!</p>
<p>Classicalmama: I am right with you! The spiraling costs in education are health and other benefit costs. I have been on both sides of the union bargaining table and can vouch for the frustration everyone feels that providing benefits seems to eclipse increased per student spending. I work with teachers – many of whom are as angry or angrier than parents about how prescriptive, standardized and overcrowded their classrooms have become. And many are so committed to serving underserved students that they would rather stay in their frustrating PS classroom than move to a PS where they can provide the kind of education they hoped for. </p>
<p>I agree – it’s not the unions, though it appears to be. Healthcare is what is bleeding public education dry.</p>
<p>Our poor teachers max out at $90,000 and they have only been getting 4.5% annual pay raises but at least they have not had to contribute to health insurance premiums. They also do not contribute to their defined benefit retirement plans. Not bad for part time work. Some of them deserve more renumeration, most should be fired.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>@Weatherby: You are kidding, right? Or are you just trying to bring this website to a crashing halt?</p>
<p>Let the fomenting begin…</p>
<p>As a real-life part-time teacher who spent seven hours working this week-end (it was a light week-end–no essays to grade) and put in 7-9 hour days last week working my part-time load, I’ll let someone else foment for me.<br>
<a href=“Opinion | The High Cost of Low Teacher Salaries - The New York Times”>Opinion | The High Cost of Low Teacher Salaries - The New York Times;
<p>@ChoatieMom</p>
<p>I think some teachers deserve much better renumeration. Some are outstanding, tireless educators. However. No matter how good the tuition, 180 working days per year is part time in my book especially since professionals in the private sector typically work 12 hours days and many do not earn that kind of money nor do they have equivalent benefits. If our teachers help kids after school, they are paid extra by the school board or in our case, we pay the good ones $60-70 per hour cash to compensate for a few of their colleagues who deserve to be fired.</p>
<p>Weatherby: Okay, I’m curious. I’m wondering what comparable professionals you have in mind who work 12 hours/day for less than the average teacher salary? I’m trying to give this a fair shake and think of some, but I’m not coming up with anyone. Are we talking people with the same level of education?</p>
<p>Can any unionized occupational group be considered a professional society? Can we equate teachers with attorneys or licensed medical professionals? </p>
<p>Anyway, engineers, microbiologists, chemists, journalists, and military personnel for a few examples make less than teachers’ total yearly compensation and when you take hours worked and unparalled benefites into consideration, most teachers in my neck of the woods are pulling down a really healthy hourly wage.</p>
<p>NFL players only work 3 hours a week…because only the games count, right?</p>