There's actually a real issue being addressed: "Gifted" programs have a very heavy bias in favor of wealthy+privileged kids, which because of continuing inequality is essentially the same as saying "give additional support and resources to already privileged group".
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This isn't a matter of "gifted student programs are bad" it's a "as implemented, gifted kid programs reinforced existing bias". The reality is that if anyone needs more teaching resources it is the "less gifted".
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ohunt @youbetyourballs
The current system is failing so many students because it's been corrupted by commercial test prep classes. That's a fixable problem by expanding access. Eliminating gifted programs limits opportunities for everyone.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dguido @youbetyourballs
But the other side of that is: funding for gifted student programs necessarily come out of funding for the students who aren't in those programs. Unfortunately educational funding *is* a 0-sum system, so funding that primarily benefits a specific group it's reducing opportunities
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
..specifically gifted programs disproportionately select children of affluent and white families. This well established, at least in the US. The result is reduced funding for already disadvantaged groups. https://www.dispatch.com/news/20180329/income-race-big-factors-in-rates-of-gifted-students-here-across-us … https://washdiplomat.com/index.php?option%3Dcom_content%26view%3Darticle%26id%3D14060:minority-students-underrepresented-in-gifted-programs-%26catid%3D1548%26Itemid%3D428 …https://thinkprogress.org/how-gifted-and-talented-programs-reinforce-class-and-race-inequities-40d72e16355d/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
In an ideal world this wouldn't be a problem because selection for "gifted" programs would be entirely objective. But it isn't. It's driven significantly by parental involvement (which means parents who can afford to spend time not working) as well as numerous other system biases
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I also recall (but cannot find) a study that showed that being "gifted" does not correlate significantly to long term "success" (presumably a wealthy white definition of success, but the point stands). If that study isn't imaginary it provides support for dropping the programs.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ohunt @youbetyourballs
Gifted programs in NYC used to be diverse when they were created in the early 90s, then future mayors gutted pipelines feeding them, preferring to push private SHSAT cram programs. That's the root cause of the disparity.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
In an ideal world, students would get education that best serves their interests and abilities. Limiting access to more individualized instruction and dumping everyone into a one-size-fits-all education is not progress.
-
-
In practice, parents treat having a gifted student as a status symbol and put enourmous preassure on their kids to qualify for those programs. Many kids subsequently burn out. Where's the evidence that such programs produce better overall outcomes?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.