[atomicUpdate]

> There’s little doubt that racism played a role in identifying children as gifted even though the label was based on supposedly objective criteria.

Why has the LA Times settled on racist teachers as the only reason for the skew in enrollment numbers, and why aren’t teachers upset the LA Times are calling them racists?

I’m constantly surprised how often accusations like this are thrown around and how little pushback there is by those accused of it.

[giantg2]

It's not that the teacher were racist. It's that the tests or indicators used to identify individuals as gifted were not evaluated well enough for bias. It's not overt racism. It's stuff like rich parents hiring tutors and the rich parents being more likely to be white (I would argue that implicit racism isn’t racism as it lacks intent, but is still a harmful bias to be eliminated). This goes back to their comment on high achievers getting into the program vs the inherently gifted. Another example is IQ tests administered in English to students who have English as a second language. Even stuff like parents training their kids for the format of the IQ test questions provides and advantage.

The problem I have with a lot of the stuff related to gifted learning is how it's structured and gate kept. In a public school, there should not be a limited number of seats for an academic program. Any student who can perform in that program should be allowed to participate, not just the top 10% or whatever. I think it should be measured on their current academic performance, not some IQ test or teacher recommendations. If you're consistently getting As in the regular course, you should be eligible to try the accelerated program. You may get more out of the accelerated program even if your grade drops from As to Bs. It also seems that many programs are all or nothing - either you're in the gifted program for all subjects or none at all. Being advanced in one or two subjects and in the regular classes for the others should be fine. It seems this is at least picking up more popularity in the past decade or two.

[Jcampuzano2]

It's really surprising they can't make the logical conclusion from what they wrote that they just point blank accused teachers as being racist.

So are we saying that teachers purposely disproportionately identified asian and white students as gifted? Can we not just admit that asian and white students usually have more learning resources provided to them during their younger years (both due to cultural and economic reasons) and thus in a typical classroom they will be the more likely to stand out academically before jumping to the race card. They've decided to skip straight past logic and straight to identity issues this time.

I am a "white-passing" latino (i.e. nobody assumes I'm latino until they hear my last name) and I was in the gifted program in California growing up. Plenty of the people also part of that program were black or latino themselves.

[thinkingtoilet]

Honest question, you're a first grade teacher in LA. How do you "push back"? Write a tweet?

[atomicUpdate]

My first thought is using your union representative to amplify your voice. Presumably the union doesn't want to be associated with, or known to be representing, racists so it's in their best interests to denounce these types of statements.

[recursive]

Cancel your subscription I guess. How are the subscription numbers?

[sickofparadox]

Have each of your students write a letter to the editors of the LA Times saying it is not nice to imply that you are a bigot.

[ironlake]

> settled on racist teachers

If the population of gifted kids is statistically over-represented by white kids, then one of these must be true:

• The test doesn't measure giftedness, but rather level of education. So we would expect kids from worse schools to perform worse. This is institutional racism. The opportunity is not equal. • Gifted kids from minority communities don't have equal access to the test or the classes. This is institutional racism. The opportunity is not equal. • White kids are smarter. They all took the same test, white kids came out on top. This is a racist belief with a millennia of discredited science to back it up.

No racist teacher required.

[surgical_fire]

> They all took the same test, white kids came out on top. This is a racist belief

I am not even white, but something there in your rationale does not make sense. If they all took the same test and white kids were on top, how is this a belief?

Is there a word missing somewhere? Is the implication that the test was rigged? It is an honest question, I couldn't follow the rationale there.

[chimpanzee]

you missed this relevant (albeit, unspecific) fragment when you extracted the quote:

> with a millennia of discredited science to back it up

[scarmig]

The third prong is a bit badly posed: descriptively, white kids test better than black kids, and each of the three prongs offers an explanation. The third prong points to a discredited belief of genetic inferiority; by positioning the three prongs as exhaustive, the author structures the argument such that if you don't accept either of the first two prongs, then you must be a racist.

[chimpanzee]

Perhaps. I didn’t really read that much into GGP’s comment. I just wanted to point out that the comment does (minimally) rebut scientific racism. And by selectively omitting that rebuttal in the quote, GP makes it appear as if the denial of scientific racism is just a claim of faith.

[surgical_fire]

But you mentioned that a test was taken. Is the test somehow unscientific? Is it rigged to favor white kids? Are you speaking of a hypothetical test that doesn't exist and was never applied?

If a test was actually taken, and it is not rigged, how can it not be a sort of scientific evidence?

[chimpanzee]

I did not.

[scarmig]

> This is institutional racism. The opportunity is not equal.

The test is not a form of racism, institutional or otherwise. It's doubling as a proxy measure for the socioeconomic disadvantage the students have experienced up to that point.

You can't get rid of socioeconomic disadvantage by refusing to measure it, no more than you can cure COVID by refusing to test for it.

[danans]

> It's doubling as a proxy measure for the socioeconomic disadvantage the students have experienced up to that point.

A socioeconomic disadvantage which in the case of California - and almost certainly elsewhere - is caused in significant part by historical racist policies (i.e. redlining).

[scarmig]

Getting rid of a test that measures effects from redlining does nothing to eliminate the effects of redlining.

[danans]

Agreed, but interpreting the results of tests without considering the effect that policies like redlining have on such results furthers the lie that the the variation in test results between groups represents innate differences in abilities of those groups instead of the effects of systemic and multigenerational discrimination.

[ivalm]

These are not the only three alternatives.

And looking at actual outcomes in the US it’s easy to see that the truth is different. It’s not even white kids that come up on top, it’s mostly Asian kids (and before that Ashkinazi kids). It’s not because they have some institutional privilege. It’s because culture matters and valuing smarts and education is important not just for test taking but also for benefiting the society long term.

[chimpanzee]

>> There’s little doubt that racism played a role in identifying children as gifted even though the label was based on supposedly objective criteria

> Why has the LA Times settled on racist teachers as the only reason…

Notice how the extracted quote (and the article itself) never actually accuses teachers of racism? The accusation only appears in your complaint.

Systemic racism can exist without overt individual racism.

Likewise, the article explicitly leaves open the possibility of other causes by simply assigning racism to “a role in” rather than to, as you claim, “the only reason”.

Your complaint (with false accusations) is, without further explanation, simply manufactured outrage.

[ivalm]

But why assign any specific value to systemic racism vs some groups value family + education more than others. Poor Asian families suffered a lot of discrimination (and still do) but their kids do well in these tests. Ashkenazi suffered a ton of discrimination especially early/mid 20th century but still did extremely well academically. I am not even saying they are inherently smarter, I’m just saying that their value system is demonstrably different, they suffered obvious discrimination, and yet had significantly above average educational outcomes.

[chimpanzee]

Why are you replying to my comment with this? It has no relevance to anything I wrote.

But since you did, I’d suggest you consider not only the value system of the victims but also that of the perpetrators and the system itself.

And also consider the history.

And consider the financial differences that often exist.

Consider the communities and their plights.

Consider destruction of cultures.

Consider the dietary and health issues that are faced.

Consider the overwhelming economic and media environments that 7 years olds grow up within and how that environment is often more impactful than parents could ever hope to be.

And, if we want to focus on biology, consider the role that vision, in particular color of skin, plays in our emotions, decision and behavior. Consider how we use color of skin to read health and emotions and intentions and how it might be harder to read those when the skin is imbued with unfamiliar tones and how on a population level, such misreads can build into mistrust and conflict.

[ivalm]

> Why are you replying to my comment with this? It has no relevance to anything I wrote.

You emphasized systemic racism as being a major cause, but group differences can be both non-biologic and NOT related to systemic racism

> not only the value system of the victims but also that of the perpetrators and the system itself.

This assumes the answer (systemic racism) in the premise. The values of the system can be good (agency, hard work, academic pursuit, etc) and misaligned with some group. That group would then do poorly, but not because the system or its values are racist.

> And also consider the history.

I did, this is why I compared to early/mid 20th century Ashkenazi and mid/late 20th century Asians. Both were very persecuted.

> And consider the financial differences that often exist

Most asians fleeing to the US in mid 20th century were much poorer than both current as well as at that time median underperforming groups in the US.

> Consider destruction of cultures.

If anything, current underperforming groups (eg african americans) are famous for having a lot of cultural products. This is where they thrive.

> Consider the dietary and health issues that are faced.

Again, both ashkinazi and asian groups suffered famines + serious malnutrition. Very few in american disadvantaged groups are in danger of starvation or serious malnutrition.

> Consider the overwhelming economic and media environments that 7 years olds grow up within and how that environment is often more impactful than parents could ever hope to be.

Everyone has access to all the same media. There is a significant effort (which I agree with) to over-represent underprivileged groups as successful heroes in modern TV/etc. Parents have significant influence on which media mix is consumed and what counts as "success." Both asians and ashkinazi were represented very negatively in the media mix of mid 20th century, yet they thrived. Nigerian american diaspora today thrives as well (unlike most other african american groups).

> And, if we want to focus on biology, consider the role that vision, in particular color of skin, plays in our emotions, decision and behavior. Consider how we use color of skin to read health and emotions and intentions and how it might be harder to read those when the skin is imbued with unfamiliar tones and how on a population level, such misreads can build into mistrust and conflict.

I specifically didn't focus on biology, but Ashkenazi were clearly targeted based on how they looked. Caricatures of "the Jew" were popular and everywhere in early to mid 20th century Europe. People perceived them especially as untrustworthy. Asians are also obviously and easily identified by a quick look at their face. South asians also have "brown" skin color, that is very similar to that of disadvantaged groups in the US, yet they do well academically/financially/etc. Most people can't tell apart nigerian americans from other african americans, yet nigerian americans tend to do well.

---

In all of this i'm not saying hardship doesn't exist, or that racism doesn't exist, or that differences are biological. I am saying that there is a confounding factor that is essentially bigger then all of this. I think this confounder is "culture/value system" of the group. Not all cultures/value systems are equal, not all of them lead to the same outcomes, these differences are not racist.

[chimpanzee]

> You emphasized systemic racism as being a major cause, but group differences can be both non-biologic and NOT related to systemic racism

Firstly, I did not. I simply pointed out that racism can be systemic without individual contribution.

Secondly, the fact that racism can arise from a third option (neither non systemic and non biologic) does not change the fact that the article did not accuse teachers of racism.

And that’s where my initial comment stopped.

As for the rest, I had hoped it would have made it clear that the issue is too complex to unravel and try to assign blame or cause. The factors are too nuanced, the history too complex, the societies and neighborhoods too diverse.

But for some reason, you seem to have a need to find a cultural- or values- based factor for differing outcomes. You can do that if you wish. I won’t partake though. (Still not sure why you even chose my comment to initiate such an attempt)

Edit: I should state that the experience of non-immigrant blacks, in the US, is entirely incomparable to that of either Asians or Ashkenazi or even Nigerians.

[doctorpangloss]

I see you have not talked to many public school parents.

[Spivak]

You don't understand the non-pushback because you're someone who thinks of racism as a personal matter and something a person either is or isn't. Everyone is racist, I'm racist. Those ideas have been deeply ingrained into me from when I was a little girl all the way through now and they're never going away. What I can do is learn to recognize when my "first thought" is likely a racist one, push it to the frontal cortex for rational analysis, and adjust my response if necessary.

Racist as a pejorative is one who is doing it on purpose or with indifference, context matters. We perceive white children as smarter is an everyone problem, not an individual teacher problem.

[User23]

Because the alternative hypothesis to racist teachers is literally unspeakable.

[vundercind]

… centuries of disadvantage compounding over generations? The predictable outcomes of poverty?

People talk about those all the time.

[casey2]

What? That Negros are dumber than Whites? I'm sure this has been debunked multiple times, so people generally don't say it for fear of sounding stupid, not of enraging some higher up cabal of leftists that either secretly or openly control everything.