So Much for Equality!

[Melissa]

5th-Grader Says 'Gifted' Standards Unfair
After High Test Scores, School District Denies 11-Year-Old Entry Into Program

This is a pitiful program.  It's another version of Affirmative Action.

[DrRick947]

This is preposterous.  I don't know how they decide who qualifies as 'gifted,' but I know who doesn't qualify: the person who dreamed up these selection criteria.  Giftedness should be about intellectual challenge, not social equality.  'Gifted' and 'pretty bright but poor' do not have the same meaning.

[maidboy]

This is indeed a case of affirmative action gone awry.  But I think it speaks
more to the need for more funding of public education and greater educational
opportunity for such gifted children, than it does to affirmative action.
Children should not be pitted against one another when it comes to education,
especially along racial lines.

There have also been cases of children of the politically well-connected
getting preferential treatment when it comes to admission to such programs.
And of course there are the so-called "legacy admissions" at colleges and
universities, where less qualified sons & daughters of alumni gain admission
to a college or grad school in place of more qualified applicants.  G.W. Bush
for example, got into Yale only because his father did.  Legacy admissions
have been going on for generations, at both public and private institutions.
Affirmative action for rich white guys you could say.  Where's the outcry?!

[maidboy]

So the Aryan Princess remains silent when confronted with the issue of
Affirmative Action that benefits privileged White people such as herself.
But God forbid a spot at a choice school be given to an underprivileged
Black or Hispanic person...or an underprivileged Caucasian for that matter.
I guess spreading the wealth is fine as long as it's among the wealthy.

[Ric9009]

Speaking as a former student that became totally bored with school and was thankfully put in a school with extremely high academic standards, a gifted program should be there to support those that a standard school program will disadvantage because the student is either going to be bored to tears and therefore stops bothering to learn or is going to be so far advanced of other students that the teacher has the choice of spending time with that student just so they have things to do or ignore them and spend time with the child that is really struggling and needs the support of a teacher.

Just like everything in society teachers are not immune to favouritism.  It is far more stimulating to a good teacher to have a student who wants to learn and shows academic excellence but leaving such a student in a class where there is a mixture of academic achievers including those that are below the standard for the year they are in, actually significantly disadvantages those students that will achieve reasonable success if they have some attention paid to them and get over whatever learning hurdle they are stuck on.

It was suggested in the comments that the test was an IQ test.  The child's academic record suggests since the statement was that she would have had to get a 130 to be considered by the program, that she either fluffed the test because her marks suggest an IQ above 130 or the academic standards for her report score is based on something other than academic achievement or is very lenient.

I cannot see the point in determining who should go in a gifted program by just one single test, or that the standards be lowered because of background.  Universities do that for admissions for underprivileged kids but what you do not see is the drop out rate.  There is no point allowing a lower standard if the person is simply not equipped for the rigours of academia that the course they have selected needs the completion of a course or to a standard that the person has not achieved.  All that leads to is failure.

So the story highlights a great many problems with the system.  it seems that a single test is being used to determine whether a child should be a gifted program.  So a child with a very high IQ but who is extremely lazy is going to be put in the such a program.  That isn't good for anyone.  My daughter is academically brilliant because she has a work ethic that is breathtaking to witness when it comes to school work (pity she has no common sense nor any understanding of how to do the simplest of household functions).  An average intelligent student who applies themselves to all their studies will normally perform at the highest levels academically.    But that doesn't make them gifted.  It is however likely to mean they will be a success in their careers and will make it through a demanding university course without problems.

A student that will benefit most from a gifted program will often not have all that good a class marks.  I mentioned boredom as one of the reasons.  Being bullied because they are smarter than everyone is another one which often results in children learning to hide their intelligence.

The child in question, I suspect might not benefit from an academic gifted program and certainly anyone that scored lower than her wouldn't either.  Her mother is highly supportive, that much is clear from the story.  It could well be that her marks reflect her environment that includes at least a supportive mother bet where she has learned from a very young age to study well, to put extra efforts into homework, and assignments.

Three is no such thing as equality when it comes to academic studies.  Those born with high intelligence are not equal to those that are born with low intelligence.  They are not necassarily better people either but an education system that strives to teach everyone equally is going to fail all students.

And it has been shown that those from a poor background are far less likely to have the support they need to perform well in class and those with language problems be it that they learn English later in life or they have some learning difficulty such as dyslexia will score lower on these standardised tests to determine "gifted" children than they should if the test was designed purely to measure bright children.

Just as an older system that did not take into account background but only measured your ability to pass tests designed to measure intelligence put me into a school of academic excellence it denied my equally intigent sister the same rights.  We both have dyslexia.  I figured ways around it at a young age.  Hers was much more severe and she gave up on school at a young age, doing poorly both in so called IQ tests and in report cards, so she was denied nay extra assistance her actual intelligence should have given her.  Indeed, she was put in a remedial class and skipped school and became a bit of a delinquent.  To this day she still resents that no one at any of her schools realised that there was an exceptionally bright student, very willing to learn, hidden away behind the resentment.

So it really depends on how the test was designed and what motives the system has for allowing marks to vary because of background.  There are actually good reasons for allowing such variances that are not to do with affirmative action.


The idea that one mark should determine the placement in a gifted program is far too simplistic a response to a very complex problem.

[Lois]

John McCain got into Annapolis based on his family credentials much as George Bush got into Yale.  Then he crashed 3 airplanes which would have normally gotten him grounded if not for his family connections. 

[Melissa]

With regard to George Bush's intelligence, I found this interesting piece a while back.  He's not the idiot many would like to believe or was foolishly reported from a phony news release back in 2001.

http://www1.csbsju.edu/USPP/Election/bush011401.htm

[Ric9009]

Bush should not have received admission to Yale and McCain certainly should not have been been approved at Annapolis unless they deserved it without taking who their parents are into account.  So called legacy placements or placements on the basis of parents is elitist and severely limits the places available for those that really do have the academic or in the case of Annapolis the multitude of talents, skills or whatever you want to call them.

Any system that places someone especially at the military academies for military officers but also at such places as Yale simply because of their parent's attendance, is practicing is deeply flawed and is praticing the entrenchment of elite families similar to having Royalty.  It is certainly discriminatory.

[Melissa]

I may disagree with legacy placements.  But, I don't know where Bush placed on the SAT such that he would normally be considered.  According to that article, he had a 1206.

I got lucky by first going to a community college then later entering university as a "non-traditional student" so I avoided the tests.  I had a friend from high school who applied to Texas A&M.  She was turned down both there and at Austin.  But, she was accepted by Harvard.  Go figure.

[Ric9009]

Melissa,

I have no idea about how universities pick students in the US.  I have been to four universities or have degrees from four at least but in all cases fees were waived and I was invited to apply and I'm pretty sure that is not a normal way the system works.

I would have thought SATS of 1206, although the article I read postulated the SATS from other information.  Bush's SAT scores are not public.  Sorry, I would have thought 1206 would be no where good enough for Yale.

As for your friend and Harvard, isn't Harvard fee based and one of the most expensive universities in the US to attend?  Perhaps she was applying for an unpopular subject and had the money.  Just a thought.

It wasn't that Bush was shown to be brighter than people often assumed, it was the legacy entrance for the two men that was the issue in any case.

[maidboy]

Ric9009 is correct in that an SAT score of 1206 is not high enough to get
into Yale.  I scored a 1290 and getting  into an Ivy League school was out
of the question for me.  Melissa's belated disagreement with legacy admissions
(aka affirmative action for privileged white people) is lukewarm at best.
But affirmative action for Blacks, Hispanics & underprivileged Whites sends her
and her fellow right wingers into fits of righteous indignation. 

[Melissa]

I don't know with any certainty what Bush's SAT score was.  An actual score was never made public.  The author of one the articles had deduced that was the least likely he would have scored. 

As for the friend, she applied to several schools and included Harvard on a bet.  She surprised several by being accepted.  But in the end, she went to Topeka.  With a degree in biology, she went on to St. Louis University Medical School.  I'm very proud of her with one exception... I wish she had chosen Obstetrics over Urology. 

As for the boy's supposed observation of my inconsistency, it is anything but that.  I favor one advancing based on their own merits.  It should not be because of the color of their skin, ethnic origin, economic status nor social status.

[DanteDC]

I don't know with any certainty what Bush's SAT score was.  An actual score was never made public.  The author of one the articles had deduced that was the least likely he would have scored. 

As for the friend, she applied to several schools and included Harvard on a bet.  She surprised several by being accepted.  But in the end, she went to Topeka.  With a degree in biology, she went on to St. Louis University Medical School.  I'm very proud of her with one exception... I wish she had chosen Obstetrics over Urology. 

As for the boy's supposed observation of my inconsistency, it is anything but that.  I favor one advancing based on their own merits.  It should not be because of the color of their skin, ethnic origin, economic status nor social status.

Y Obstetrics over Urology jw.

[Melissa]

Do I really have to explain that?

[DanteDC]

Do I really have to explain that?

no. but do tell.

[maidboy]

As for the boy's supposed observation of my inconsistency, it is anything but that.  I favor one advancing based on their own merits.  It should not be because of the color of their skin, ethnic origin, economic status nor social status.

I merely observed your belated and tepid disagreement with legacy admissions
in contrast to your righteous indignation over affirmative action.

[Ric9009]

Maidboy,

I know this is 1408 and all but, while I disagree with Melissa on most subjects, her views seem to be very consistent with her own moral compass and must say that it seems that your last comment about belated and tepid disagreement with legacy admissions is based on your personal dislike for Melissa's views rather than what she actually commented on.  As best as I can see this thread was to do with a little girl and whether she had the right to go to a gifted program, the selection criteria being based on a single score which was adjusted depending on other factors in the child's background such as English being a second language.  I though the issues far more complex than this just being an argument on affirmative action but it could certainly be viewed as affirmative action and that is what the initial posts were all about.

Someone raised the quite separate issue of legacy admissions, which had nothing to do with the primary argument, and Melissa said she disagreed with legacy placements.  OK, she said it in a single short comment but since it was a side issue and it seemed she was more interested in the comments relating to Bush, since it was her that brought up the subject that he might have been brighter than he appeared, and went straight back to that subject.

So Maidboy is a direct declarative statement "tepid" or the fact that someone does not comment immediately on every side issue raised "belated"?  Or is it that you don't like Melissa's stance on most things? 

I may be being provocative and probably even a little rude in calling you on your comments but this is 1408 after all, and while I cannot agree with Melissa, she at least argues her points and mostly stays on point, at least in the threads in which I have been an active participant.  I see nothing wrong with you not liking Meissa's stand on issues or even you thinking poorly of her because of her opinions or even directly challenging her as being unsympathetic, not having an empathetic bone in her body, and not caringfor the welfare of others.  Call her "hearless ultra conservative" if you like.  I'm not going to disagree with any of that but it just seemed to me that your last comments did not accurately reflect this thread. 

[maidboy]

Ric9009,
Your point is well taken, as it was I who raised the related issues of poor
funding of public schools, children of the well connected getting admitted
into gifted programs, and at much greater length, legacy admissions.
Melissa though, is very quick to respond to posts with an acid tongue,
and every so often, even a cogent argument.  But for some reason she
was not so quick to respond to the issues I raised.  Maybe she simply
overlooked my post and perhaps I should have given her the benefit of
the doubt instead of calling her out as soon as I did.

But it has also been my observation that those who "cry foul" the loudest
about Affirmative Action, or any such preferential treatment for minorities
and economically disadvantaged, are those on the Political Right.  While it
is perfectly understandable for Caucasians of modest means to complain
about Affirmative Action (since they bear the direct brunt of it) it is the
more affluent, politically influential opponents of Affirmative Action who I
have a problem with.  For generations, affluent White people benefited
from their own brand of affirmative action, be it access to special programs
at their well funded public schools, or preferential treatment when it comes
to college or grad school admissions.  Indeed, legacy admissions are seen
by many of the wealthy as almost their birthright and vigorously defended.
But a "leg up" for historically discriminated against minorities?  Then cries of
"reverse discrimination" echo loudly through the halls of Academe.

As I stated in my first response, I believe the story Melissa posted speaks
more to the need for better funding of our public schools and greater
educational opportunities for our children.  And children as young as eleven
should not be pitted against each other and be used as pawns in a political
game over the issue of Affirmative Action.

[Melissa]

Do I really have to explain that?

no. but do tell.

I would much prefer giving birth to a child than deal with matters which concern her specialty.

[Melissa]

More funding for government schools?  That will solve nothing but waste more of taxpayer's money.

My girls attend private school though one is still in preschool.  So, I'm not that familiar with the government schools in this area.  However, a friend in Atlanta said that Atlanta city schools spend about $13,000 per student, not including what is spent on building maintenance.   So, how is it Atlanta has less than a fifty percent graduation rate?

My oldest daughter's current school year cost $6,200.  The graduation rate through high school is 99%+.  Go figure.