Overblog All blogs Top blogs Humor & Comedy
Edit post Follow this blog Administration + Create my blog
MENU
Chris Magyar
Advertising

Gin & Tonic Kids

"Memo to suburban voucher opponents who 'support public education': you're already sending your kid to private school. You're just confused because your tuition fees came bundled with granite countertops and hardwood floors."

Great mini-rant from Megan McArdle on gifted-and-talented programs and how perhaps their main effect is confuse rich parents into thinking that the public school system doesn't need reform.

FYI: Yes, I was "G&T" tracked in first grade, and I got a giant leg up on college from that, though my work ethic is also pretty suspect as a result. (There are studies out there about how continuously telling kids they're smart makes them work less and be averse to challenging themselves. I'll see if I can dig up some links sometime.) I also went to a public school district that behaved and attracted talent like a private school. My main concern, as an about-to-be-parent, is not that such districts exist, but that they exist thanks to income inequality that has only worsened in the 15 years since I graduated.

Also, the name "gifted and talented" strikes me as a marvelous phrase that sounds politically correct but is literally horrible. "These children, through no work on their part, have gifts and talents. We can tell because ... well, I guess we can just tell because all these other kids were born without any gifts or talents somehow."

By the way, I almost lost my slot in G&T on the first day of segregated instruction, when me and the other two G&T girls in my class were asked to color a picture of a sheep on a hill while the other kids ... I don't know, learned how to wash dishes or something ... and instead of coloring the hill green, I tried to draw each individual blade of grass with my green crayon. When the teacher patiently explained to me later that I could have just filled the hill area in with solid green, I could tell she was debating which euphemistic definition of "gifted" really applied to me.

Advertising
Share this post
Repost0
To be informed of the latest articles, subscribe:
Comment on this post
C
Tim, this is actually a great topic that's reminding me of some stuff I've read about intellect-based segregation and when/how/why it works or not. I'll try to pull a post together in the next few days. It is hugely beneficial for those who are in it, and thus shouldn't be jettisoned lightly, but there are questions about implementation that public school administrators have struggled with especially in the past decade.
Reply
T
The G+T program I had (one day a week, starting in 2nd or 3rd grade) was basically my lifeline in elementary school and the only place I learned anything. I guess that doesn't generalize it's effectiveness, but it certainly helped me more than being in the split 5th/6th grade class that jammed the low testers in 6th grade in with the high testers in 5th.
Reply
C
And, yeah, I called it a "great rant" despite that sloppiness, though naturally that's because I happen to agree with both her points. Upon more objective analysis, I suppose it was merely two great mini-rants with a lousy transition. :)
Reply
T
Well, a friend of mine who previously was a teacher informs me that now it is done so differently that my objections are completely unfounded. Feel free to delete my second comment.
Reply
C
I think she does rhetorically elide economic privilege and gifted-and-talented programming by jamming them into this short post, but there's no explicit tie. My interpretation is more along the lines of 1) G&T programs do not have a lot of empirical support that they are academically beneficial, yet persist because, obviously, parents of G&T kids love them.2) Parents in wealthy suburbs may be confusing their superior public schools with the state of public schools in general, and thus opposing voucher reform.Both those points are up for debate (though point 1 has some evidence behind it), but I agree that it was sloppy to lump them together, as they're not necessarily related. If anything, she could make a better point saying the early and capricious (though perhaps laudably income-blind) selection process for G&T programs mirrors the capricious lottery system for high-demand charter schools in voucher-free districts.
Reply