Does China have an advanced class for 9 year olds? I assumed they didn't split students up until later when they had more of an established base. Of course wealthier kids there get a lot of extra tutoring outside of regular school and that gets them in to top schools at a much higher rate when they do get to that age.
Can someone on the right explain the reasoning behind this decision and then give an alternate solution to the problem that doesn't hurt more intelligent kids? That way 1. I know you understand what it's trying to achieve and 2. you meet in the middle and show you care about education for everyone, especially if you think you know better.
I'm not on the right, but I am a teacher, and I think that you're making some fairly large assumptions that may not be as firmly based in fact as you believe them to be.
The first is the assumption about advanced education in China. As you would imagine, the Chinese government is very invested in the idea that all children in the nation have the same education opportunities, and have been endorsing standardized education since the revolution... but in practice China has some of the most unequal educational outcomes on the planet. They still have a large segment of the population who are illiterate and even relatively innumerate, and on the other end of the spectrum produce some of the most mathematically, linguistically, and scientifically gifted people in the world. I've taught a number of kids from China (and other Asian nations) and they would assure you that streaming for ability is very real and is a huge factor in the pressure to perform that students face in those nations. If you are not at the top, you get left behind in a multitude of ways.
The second is the assumption that this particular policy decision in Boston is based entirely or primarily on concerns about racial equity and outcomes.
So, first, yes I do understand the race based reasoning behind the decision. Programs that result in segregated demographics, funneling the majority of students of one or two racial backgrounds into an advanced track, while funneling the majority of students from one or two other racial backgrounds into a remedial track, can become self fulfilling. Students learn from one another and develop classroom cultures together. If the culture of the classroom is to have a growth mindset, believing that a scholarly attitude and work ethic will lead to eventual success, the individual in that classroom will adopt that mindset. Likewise, if the culture of the classroom is one of disinterest and defeatism, the individual in that classroom will develop that mindset. When streaming for ability turns into racially segregated classrooms you effectively ghettoize the remedial group, undermining their opportunities to improve by cuing off of students with a healthy growth mindset. This is a problem. No doubt.
Now back to your assumption that this is the only, or primary concern being addressed in this decision. The truth of the matter is that North American education systems have a deep systemic bias against high achieving students.
Curriculum documents are written specifically for the average student. Teachers are hired based on their ability to teach to the average student. Courses are paced and constructed around the pace and interests of the average student. The entire infrastructure is built around the goal of the average student maximizing their learning and performance potential.
Struggling (or, as we now call them, 'striving') students are likewise catered to. They are given extra support, through resource teachers and educational assistants. Break-out rooms are built for them. They are regularly tested and analyzed so that courses can be tailored to their needs by their teachers. In the province where I teach, some students have adjusted or individualized programs that require their teachers to plan specific methods for ensuring that struggling students will meet the course outcomes as tailored to their specific capabilities, again with the goal of maximizing their learning and performance potential.
Gifted students get none of this. The curriculums aren't written for them; the teachers aren't trained to teach them; the pacing isn't set for them. And yet they don't receive accommodations of any sort. No educational assistants to help challenge them beyond the curricular requirements. No breakout rooms where they can work at their own pace. No requirement whatsoever that the teacher adjust or individualize their program to fit their capabilities. The clear fact is that the system has no interest in any sort of goal toward maximizing their learning and performance potential.
Gifted students are the only students in the system for whom this is true. Their saving grace is that there are individual teachers in the system with advanced degrees who make the effort, beyond the efforts and objectives of the system itself, to create courses and course work that will challenge and engage these kids. That and each other, because there is nothing quite so beneficial as a group of likeminded and similarly gifted peers to bring out the best in a student. And if the stars align just right, there may even be an advanced program where these teachers and these peers come together and, finally, these students get to work toward the goal of maximizing their own learning and performance potential.
That's going away rapidly, though, and it's not entirely because of race, but largely because the system hates that these sorts of students exist. Their existence undermines the philosophy that it is possible to create a system where all students achieve the same level of success.
