new post »
see more posts »
FWIW, I heard today that a dc at our preK with below 95 OLSAT was just offered a spot at TAG.
101 replies [ Reply | Watch | Options ]np: Oh please. Would you prefer them to close the program down. They should have known they will not fill it up with 97+ kids.
[ Reply | Options ]i would prefer them to go down a wait list ranked by score and not let in some random dc whose parents could have bribed their way in for all we know. again, FAIRNESS and TRANSPARENCY are what the doe promised.
[ Reply | Options ]Obviously they went down the list of kids that scored 97+ and listed TAG already, and still don't have enough kids.
[ Reply | Options ]it seems like they should then go to those scoring 97 and above who didn't list tag and ask if they are sure they don't want tag before going to those who scored below the cutoff.
[ Reply | Options ]Girls, if you wanted your dc to go to a citywide so badly, you should have listed NEST and TAG too. It was an option.
[ Reply | Options ]eh. there might have been someone who wanted, say, lower lab over tag so didn't rank tag. but then they got, say, ps11 with a 97 over lower lab. maybe if they were offered tag now they would take it. i'm not a fan of giving people a second chance, but i'm also not a fan of giving people who didn't even qualify a shot at a citywide unless the doe cares to officially explain their rationale and their new policy.
[ Reply | Options ]
why is this obvious? unless they announce a policy on how they plan to deal with undersubscribed g&t's, it's all speculation. and all open to corruption.
[ Reply | Options ]corruption? please! try the idea that the doe is trying to be flexible and creative with a new process. they must respond to the data/circumstances that arise. No one is trying to steal from you. Calm down, and consider some strong meds.
[ Reply | Options ]no one's stealing from me. dc is already in at a g&t. but the doe is just pathetic. promising one thing and doing another. big liars is what they are.
[ Reply | Options ]see that is a very childish response. they have thousands of kids to manage and are trying to evolve the system to be the most fair while preserving good programs. they decide how to handle unforseen circumstances as they arise because that is what any smart reasonable entity would do. No one is lying or stealing or breaking promises. you are way to concrete and inflexible for an adult.
[ Reply | Options ]i'm sorry, but evolving as you go equals unfair and open to corruption. there's no unforeseen circumstance here. everyone predicted months ago that tag would never be filled and they knew this would be the case. they should have announced what their policy would be should seats go unfilled. they shouldn't be secretly calling up families, violating their own mandates. i'm sorry we disagree. that's no reason to call me a child.
[ Reply | Options ]they are under no obligation to announce every single decision a long the way. to say corruption is afoot with no evidence is wildly paranoid. no organization can run effectively by passing every decision it makes to the constituency. sometimes they just need to work with the circumstances. then if they feel some things worked better than others, they can announce the things they will keep next year.
[ Reply | Options ]i never said there was corruption. i said by quietly breaking their own rules they are now OPEN to corruption. and yes, they are under an obligation as an agency supported by taxpayer dollars to make public their decisions. your argument is ludicrous. they keep things secret until they feel they are working out? puh. leeze.
[ Reply | Options ]I think you are being extreme. we are talking about a few kids in a system with 1 million. If they decide to place a few kids now that all is said and done based on current circumstances, they do not need to announce every placement. I agree that if they decide to incorporate such decisions into overall policy going forward, then they should announce as much in the fall. otherwise, making a federal case over every dc placed (likely for the greaqter good such as saving tag) is ridiculous. no govt agency announces every decision on that level. only if it becomes policy is it relevant
[ Reply | Options ]i never said make a federal case out of every dc placed. i said make an announcement if you suddenly have a new policy on g&t placement. and that means when you decide to place one child who doesn't meet the official criteria. letting the government decide when or when something is policy or not is ridiculous. i guess you voted for george bush.
[ Reply | Options ]no, I did not vote for Bush. But i work in the real world and understand the realities of making things work irl. If the doe felt it was their best decision to chnge one class at tag to district wide criteria to keep the program going for the greater good, so be it. perhaps with that new info, they will announce this as policy for the next season. I am fine with that and do not feel angry or cheated or lied to as many including you do here.
[ Reply | Options ]The DOE changed a system that worked fine for many schools in the name of transparency. They made a huge deal about this. They have deprived principals of the power to determine the character of their schools in honor of the principle of transparency, so it's the height of hypocrisy to violate a principle they said was sacrosanct. When you ask the doe for an accommodation, they'll tell you No, there is some principle that can't be violated.
[ Reply | Options ]I think if the doe did was is being rumored here, it was for the greater good. I also think that THEY are the officials in the position to make decisions for the greater good. I think they most certainly can make minor decisions without informing the entire city each time. no govt agency has to do what you suggest, even in the good ole USA. first you accuse me of being a republican bush supporter, now communist? you sound like a nut, and typical of the UB public school moms frequenting the board these days.
[ Reply | Options ]transparency does not mean that you report every minor decision in a press conference. admit that you are just pissed that the decision making power was centralized. making this big case about transparency and the philosophy of violating some higher principle makes me want to lmao. this is just dramatic bs, and you know it. know one could possibly take you seriously
[ Reply | Options ]np. i guess we're in the minority, but i totally agree. i don't have a problem with the doe lowering the bar to save a program or two, but they should be upfront about it or there's a perception of shadiness even if there isn't the reality. and choose the students fairly. don't let the squeaky wheels muscle their way in as was the case in the past. and don't let it appear that's a possibility but not being clear about the policy.
[ Reply | Options ]I think that by and large they have stuck to the policy they announced. they have talked about creating new programs and closing others, and this is what the tag thing is in spirit. I don't feel there are lots of personal exceptions around because I see no evidence of it, and feel the general approach has been to make things more fair, and I think that is what they are doing. the paranoia everytime someone finds out about a minor decision meant to adjust to current circumstances is something I feel very unsympathetic towards. I thinjk the doe is trying to make positive changes and so many of the paranoid naysayers are getting in the way for their own personal reasons
[ Reply | Options ]
Are you saying this only about TAG? Why, if so, are you saying they should have known? Do you have stats on how families ranked their choices or do you just assume Anderson is the only Citywide w/qualified applicants galore? Anderson pooled only 99s except the sibs and was filled Day1. Nest did the same and found themselves w/seats. Who ever said the DoE ran a fair, transparent policy for Citywides? At no time did all scores at 97 and above get put in the same race.
[ Reply | Options ]
TAG has a citywide program and a district program housed in the school, so only the citywide program would require 97+
[ Reply | Options ]-
I despise people like you running to UB to make these announcements. Like you are imparting some important knowledge or something. Its gossip, meant to inflame and potentially outing a dc that people might recognize. you are really ill.
[ Reply | Options ]Not OP, but you are really out of line. There is nothing at all about her post that has specific identifying information. I am not OP, but I also know of a dc with exact same situation, so it's nothing "unique." Because the DOE doesn't communicate well, boards like this serve a useful purpose in sharing information that the DOE is not making public.
[ Reply | Options ]np: If I were the parent of one of the couple of kids in this situation, I would not be happy to see my info posted here, and really why is this at all necessary? people do not benefit from this rumor mongering.
[ Reply | Options ]It's not rumor mongering. This is actually happening with apparently several families. Is any of UB "necessary"?
[ Reply | Options ]tough titties. you talked your way into a program you didn't deserve to be in and now you're going to put up with a little gossip. boo. hoo.
[ Reply | Options ]-
lol! don't forget crazy. would not have considered public for dc, much less TAG.
[ Reply | Options ]-
the kids are fine. its the crazy paranoid moms who are fighting for the crumbs that would scare me. My bet is that most of them are white.
[ Reply | Options ]
-
-
-
-
naw. doesn't matter. she just wants to stir up that feeling that someone got something more than someone else just one more time. seems some people just feed on this stuff. same mentality on insideschools these days as is being discussed below.
[ Reply | Options ]Public school moms are famous for this. always looking for someone who got a little more, a few more crumbs, some inequity or appearance of unfairness. hoping to use it to squeeze a few more drops from the system. I agree. Its very unattractive.
[ Reply | Options ]^^^big reason we decided to go private. wasn't the DOE that turned us off. more the political bs the doe has to deal with given all the nuts out there in the system...many of which seem to be here on UB.
[ Reply | Options ]-
np: private school moms tend to be compliant and believe in the system. public school moms feel cheated by the system, and are thus looking for any shred of evidence to support their feelings.
[ Reply | Options ]compliant? interesting. i read that horace mann article in ny mag, and the moms of those little monsters smearing their teachers on facebook could not have been further from compliant when it came to punishing their little darlings, or even suggesting they were out of line. it seems they are just as willing to tear the face of anyone who dares deny their little snookems anything as public school moms are. if not more so.
[ Reply | Options ]-
-
Sigh. Yes, I'm sure that that was the big reason you decided to go private. However, if it really were the big reason, then you are truly stupid.
[ Reply | Options ]
-
It's not just that public school NYC moms are always resentful if someone else gets a crumb more than they get or might get. The DOE trains its teachers and administrators to be like this too. All the kids hear all day long is If I do that for you, I have to do it for everyone. And if you ask a school admin or teacher for anything as a parent, you get There's a policy and if I did it for you, I'd have to do it for everyone. It's so stupid. But it may be that the DOE trains the public school moms to behave this way - it crosses ethnic and class lines.
[ Reply | Options ]no. it is the result of people taking the role of children vis a vis the authority figure. i personally don't do that. I see my self as an adult in the world who has a say in my life. these public school parents seem very regressed and childish. always screaming unfair. it is sad.
[ Reply | Options ]The DOE treats parents like they're children. You can behave like an adult with the DOE, but the DOE will still treat you like you are a child. I personally hate the attitude that this one got one crumb more than me, and everyone should suffer equally. But there is no greater promulgator of that ethic than the DOE, so it's absurd to criticize only the public school parents who have that attitude and not the public school authorities who foster it.
[ Reply | Options ]
-
-
Did you hear this from the parent of that child? It's sad that she may have told you her good news, you may have smiled in her face and dashed off to post it here. Why?
[ Reply | Options ]I am sorry but whoever told you that was pulling your leg. All kids at TAG got 97+ on the test.
[ Reply | Options ]-
-
np. i believe it. tag is undersubscribed. and all they have to do is call what was once a citywide program (same classroom, same teachers, same resources) a districtwide, and suddenly--presto, change-o!! the 95s suddenly qualify! it's all smoke and mirrors. par for the course at the doe.
[ Reply | Options ]
-
Sorry, Possible PA from TAG; She's telling the truth-even though she should've stopped by the office for her 'Late Pass'; this isn't news.
[ Reply | Options ]Let's see. They have 3 schools that are citywide gifteds, but TAG is not operating at the same level as the other two. So parents don't sign up. There are plenty of 97+'s to go around, but parents reluctant. So how do you build up TAG's reputation and make it desirable? Let's see. You could... improve the shool! Give it extra money to hire fabulous teachers. Put in a great theater program. Or Latin. Or make a partnership with a prestigious institution and give it a science or arts orientation. Or get a newspaper or magazine to be your partner and give it a journalism partner. More 97+'s would come. School would improve. Kids already at TAG would benefit. TAG would turn into a more integrated school (integration is a good thing for everyone when possible). You'd be raising TAG, instead of diluting it or so giving that appearance. Would the DOE in a milion years ever do something real as opposed to play with the systems and the pr? Nope.
[ Reply | Options ]
UrbanBaby Asks...
How do you feel about your in-laws?
- I love them, they've been a great addition to my life
- I like them most of the time
- I tolerate them
- I can't stand them
Already voted? View Results
Boards Help
Abbreviations
More Boards Help
Site Feedback Thank you for your feedback about the new site. We are paying close attention to your comments and we will incorporate them as we make improvements to the site. Please continue to report problems and offer feedback on the Site Feedback Board and visit our Site Talk blog for answers to some of your questions and updates on specific issues.
More Boards Help
Site Feedback Thank you for your feedback about the new site. We are paying close attention to your comments and we will incorporate them as we make improvements to the site. Please continue to report problems and offer feedback on the Site Feedback Board and visit our Site Talk blog for answers to some of your questions and updates on specific issues.
Flashback