I’m an Ivy League graduate with a degree in math who teaches Honors math at an urban public high school. I obviously have some belief in the importance of educating top students. Unfortunately, I find that your analysis is pretty weak.
“As does anyone watching these Olympics” is pretty telling. Do believe that the Winter Olympics is a meritocracy? That people of African descent make up 90%+ of the best sprinters in the world but <5% of the best speed skaters or bobsledders? That the country of Nepal (or India?) contains no naturally gifted skiers? That blind spot is really telling about your view into American Education.
I left a selective admissions charter school (one of the best or the best in the city) for two different open enrollment schools, and the top end talent is the SAME at all three places. But results are better for the students who had a more privileged education and upbringing. True commitment to meritocracy requires grappling with the fact that we have massive amounts of incredibly talented people that we under-develop. You can hand-waive and say we need to make things better for all kids, but here are resources trade-offs, and they are happening, and if you aren’t meaningfully engaging with them then you aren’t actually saying anything about meritocracy.
The opponents of gifted programs gain their audience from the true failure of meritocracy. That it selects for whiteness, for parents who had a work schedule to allow them to maintain proper diet and sleep schedules for their children, for people who live in areas with lower levels of air and water pollution, and for people who have had better past educations.
Go to a prep school for a year and an urban high school for a year, compare college admissions, and you’ll see why people don’t believe in our meritocracy.
If you believe in the relevance of cultivating top tier talent, you need to make much stronger argument in favor of redistributing developmental and educational resources more radically than the soft belief in gifted education you suggest here.
Yes, that is the idea. But there's a hidden radicalism in that definition: it has to come along with the idea that not all individual students have the same potential. And the consequences of that, for our education system and our society, are vast.
I’m an Ivy League graduate with a degree in math who teaches Honors math at an urban public high school. I obviously have some belief in the importance of educating top students. Unfortunately, I find that your analysis is pretty weak.
“As does anyone watching these Olympics” is pretty telling. Do believe that the Winter Olympics is a meritocracy? That people of African descent make up 90%+ of the best sprinters in the world but <5% of the best speed skaters or bobsledders? That the country of Nepal (or India?) contains no naturally gifted skiers? That blind spot is really telling about your view into American Education.
I left a selective admissions charter school (one of the best or the best in the city) for two different open enrollment schools, and the top end talent is the SAME at all three places. But results are better for the students who had a more privileged education and upbringing. True commitment to meritocracy requires grappling with the fact that we have massive amounts of incredibly talented people that we under-develop. You can hand-waive and say we need to make things better for all kids, but here are resources trade-offs, and they are happening, and if you aren’t meaningfully engaging with them then you aren’t actually saying anything about meritocracy.
The opponents of gifted programs gain their audience from the true failure of meritocracy. That it selects for whiteness, for parents who had a work schedule to allow them to maintain proper diet and sleep schedules for their children, for people who live in areas with lower levels of air and water pollution, and for people who have had better past educations.
Go to a prep school for a year and an urban high school for a year, compare college admissions, and you’ll see why people don’t believe in our meritocracy.
If you believe in the relevance of cultivating top tier talent, you need to make much stronger argument in favor of redistributing developmental and educational resources more radically than the soft belief in gifted education you suggest here.
"I mean maximizes their human potential"
Yes, that is the idea. But there's a hidden radicalism in that definition: it has to come along with the idea that not all individual students have the same potential. And the consequences of that, for our education system and our society, are vast.