Did you read the article?
It’s the social engineering that’s concerning.
Minorities are “under-represented” in gifted classes.
Whose fault is that? I’d say the parents who don’t value education.
The parents say they’re being discriminated against and there should be no gifted programs because their kids can’t get into them.
Trump promised to cure Cancer in his second term.
Welcome to my thread! As long as you’re here, quick question.
Eliminating the gifted program: A good idea or a bad idea? Is “social justice” more important than delivering the best educational results we can get? 
wait are Republican now infavor of higher education costs.
I know that every liberal wants to make every thread about Trump. This is my thread and my topic. And it’s NOT about Trump. Please respect the community guidelines and not change the topic. Thanks in advance! 
I have a question:
Eliminating the gifted program: A good idea or a bad idea? Is “social justice” more important than delivering the best educational results we can get?
I did read the article.
In the first paragraph it discussed that the board was partnering with a nonprofit group.
But the article did not discuss what the partnering was going to accomplish.
Here’s the actual article that is critical. It is not cutting out gifted program. It is partnering with non-profit group TAF.
“At Washington, TAF’s support staff, including a college- and career-readiness program manager and math instruction specialists, would manage the school in partnership with current staff. The agreement says TAF will invest in robotics, engineering and design labs during and after school at a vocational studies institute. It will take three years to phase in the TAF academic model, starting with incoming sixth-graders.”
The program has historically been dominated by white and Asian students, and this hasn’t set well with some folks who want to see more diversity in advanced programs. But rather than improve access, some school leaders—including Superintendent Denise Juneau—have decided that the whole program is a form of “redlining” and are trying to kill off the whole thing, over the objections of their own customers.
Did ya read the article I linked or are you going to ignore it to keep pushing your narrative that libs don’t want to cure cancer?
Make the effort to put things in the right place, so that we can spend more time discussing and less cleaning up. So:
Since this is not a Trump thread, can I assume that we will be complying with community guidelines and staying on topic from here on? 
Bad idea. Gifted programs are important.
But Trump loves the uneducated so he might support it.
Cancer is inevitable.
Dread it… run from it … destiny arrives all the same, and now it’s here.
Lesson that hopefully someone will learn… don’t put sarcasm in thread titles or the respondents will never stay on topic.
Not that they do even when the topic of the thread is clearly stated…
You were doing great until you blew it and made it about Trump. 
I haven’t read it yet. But the cancer thing really worked out well for me. Libs can’t stop obsessing on it. Which keeps my thread at the top of the list. That’s called an “attention getter.”
It looks like it got some attention. 
They can’t help themselves. TDS is strong on those who suffer from.
Remember. Be sure to come here and get their blessings on your thread titles moving forward.
Libs and cancer.
Don’t eliminate gifted programs in schools.
The cancer thing really worked out well for me. Libs can’t stop obsessing on it. Which keeps my thread at the top of the list. That’s called an “attention getter.”
It looks like it got some attention.
THANK YOU!!!
Hmmm, so STEM-focused curriculum for advanced learners…
The writer or musician or marketer or non-quants are left behind.
I get the problem they’re trying to solve, but I’d be in favor of expanding access and finding criteria outside of standardized tests to select students.
Take away gifted and talented programs from public schools, and the rich kids can go to private school while the rest are left behind. The problem of haves and have nots is exacerbated.
That’s just my theory; having said that, is there any data on improved outcomes from schools that have eliminated gifted programs?
I did not see anything in the Seattle Times article that addressed the parents. Nothing but quotes from union leaders and board members. And it was still primarily focused on race. I would expect nothing less from a liberal paper.
Ultimately, its the town and school board’s decision.
And of course it’s a much more complicated topic than a simple yes or no question suggests.
But why does a school ned a ‘program’ to advance kids who need additional challenge? Why doesn’t act just happen?
