If you take a random sample from a population, then you'd expect the sample to be representative of the population. All else being equal: if you categorize a population in some arbitrary way, and there's a particular distribution of those categories in that population; you should expect the same distribution in your sample.
In this case the distribution in the population was not identical to the distribution in the sample.
Why would you expect the sample of gifted children to be representative of the population. By almost every measure Hispanic and Black students fall behind other students. The achievement gap is very well studied.
The challenge is fixing the problem, not pretending it doesn’t exit by making white and Asian students educations worse.
This is like the Boston PD issuing orders to shoot more unarmed Asians since black and Hispanics are shot more disproportionately.
In combination with other indicators, a strong gender/racial skew relative to the underlying population can be a predictor that your program or organization will be in trouble soon.
Indeed, it seems to be in trouble at this time: The article states: "Cassellius says interest in the program had declined over several years[...]". So there are clearly more issues.
My understanding of the article is that they're going on a one year hiatus to figure out the issues and fix them.
The populations in these urban school districts are very skewed due to middle class Black and Latino populations migrating to the suburbs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_flight. So the district comprises rich white yuppies, and lower income people of color, often recent immigrants, with little in-between.
So according to you, it's due to demographics, where people are actually becoming more affluent!
That does seem rather hopeful for the future.
Thank you for taking the time to explain.
Are you predicting that schools will have a rough time for the next generation or so, until the current generation (or the one after) become parents themselves?
Yes and no. Immigrants are constantly coming in, and cities like Boston will probably continue to be a first waypoint for immigrants getting their legs under them. So in that sense, school districts in cities will continue to face these disparities. Apart from that, even as the Black middle class grows, there is persistent multi-generational poverty among Black people in urban areas that has proven nearly impossible to improve. Schools will continue to deal with that as well.
Two other Asian kids and I were at a public school of several hundred kids of mostly minority groups. We three were consistently in the top 5 ranks and none of us were especially well off.
Intelligence being shown in schools isn't random: it's a result of who can afford better education in the lower grades, education materials in pre-school, a baby sitter who can teach basic math before school begins, private school, pre school, etc. This makes perfect sense, and the smart thing to do is to implement a program below this at the younger grades to try to give the entire lower grade levels a better chance at getting that advanced learning. "Something isn't right" doesn't mean kill the whole damn program. Maybe evaluate their on-boarding process in addition.
In my elementary school, I was lucky enough to not miss the one day they were testing for advanced learning (if you missed it, tough luck: that was the only onboarding year) and it changed my school experience forever. I don't think I would be the person I am today, at all, if I had been sick that one day. If there are similar restrictions or barriers for entry that are not related to intelligence, they need to be looked into.
I couldn’t agree more. I benefited greatly from a gifted track in my otherwise fairly mediocre public school system. Now seeing my kids and their peers, the differences in starting point of kindergarten and 1st graders was shocking. Many kids came in knowing how to read Dr Suess, do basic math, and take turns in games/crafts/conversation. Others couldn’t even manage any of those basics. We’re in a controlled choice district (where there is cross-city busing but some bias towards the two schools closest to you and to where an older sibling attends). I think I could watch a kindergartner for 90 minutes and predict the family economic status with high accuracy. (Cambridge, MA has plenty of affluent people of all races; this breaks down on economic lines much more than on any other dimension.)
I can’t even really “blame” the families for whom they need to have all adults working outside the home and often more than one job. How can you do that and expect to give the kids a level of attention that a family with a full-time adult in the house (whether a parent or nanny)? Kids are exhausting; so is working multiple jobs and worrying about money all the time.
I don’t know what the answer is, but I think it’s terrible to kneecap the successful and promising students just because not everyone is one or because you find a socio-economic discrepancy in the makeup. If you do that, you accelerate the flight of better students out to better public districts, to private schools, or supplemental experiences, which does nothing to lift the majority of the student body. (I suppose private schooling means you get some money from the parents who didn’t leave your town without having to bother to serve them. But you also lose all that role modeling.)
Sure. It's just my district's extended learning program though, I am not in the Boston program.
It was a program that started in elementary school (https://ycsd.yorkcountyschools.org/EXTENDCenter). In second grade they tested us for it, I don't remember a whole lot about it. I do remember it was logic-based and math-based. Every Wednesday from 2nd grade to 5th grade (then in middle school on a different schedule) we would spend in the extended learning program's building (a very small wing). We learned French (though looking back it was more preparing us to learn other languages than actually learning French), did science projects, wrote stuff about a random topic selected out of an encyclopedia, etc. It really is my most fond memory of school and I still keep in contact with the teacher.
Over in the middle school side, we did more advanced topics. We studied the Ebola virus and how it affects the body, we wrote papers about an unknown John Doe in Yorktown in 1770's (then we literally walked to it, separate tangent below), we had a "socratic seminar" where we debated topics, we built a Rube Goldberg machine, all sorts of stuff.
It actually changed my life. Anyone who says advanced education doesn't help simply doesn't see the changes a well-designed, thought out program has. And this was all in a public school. I checked their site recently and they are still running it even through the pandemic, which warms my heart.
I mentioned the one-day, one-time onboarding process. They have since remedied it, instead scheduling tests with students chosen. This is a good solution and I'm glad they implemented it.
Tangent: I lived in Yorktown Virginia, which is probably my second favorite thing about my childhood. The pre-school I went to was a 30 second walk down a hill to Yorktown Beach. In middle school, we read about the Revolutionary War, then took a field trip consisting of walking outside the doors, through the forest and 5 minutes of walking, and just like that we were where it actually took place, with monuments, statues, historical signs, etc.
No problem. And I do agree with you: there is a problem that needs to be addressed with their system. I just don't think "let's not let new students in" is the answer.
In this case the distribution in the population was not identical to the distribution in the sample.
Clearly something isn't right.