A virtual meeting of the Panel for Educational Policy is getting underway. On the agenda: the contract with test-maker Pearson to provide a gifted-and-talented entrance exam to be given this spring to city four-year-olds.

“This is a very challenging topic. As a pedagogue, as a principal, as a parent, I can say with certainty that there is a better way to serve our learners," than a single test for four-year-olds for gifted and talented programs, @DOEChancellor says.

Some news: @DOEChancellor just rolled out some changes to gifted and talented.
-Fill unfilled seats with a lottery
-Implement a diversity in admissions program for all district G&T programs
-Give geographic priority to kids in districts w/o their own kindergarten G&T programs

It sounded to me like these changes would be for this admission cycle. We have not heard this before... I suspect it is in part an effort to soften criticism of the city's decision to continue using the test this year even as they say it's not a good exam.

Carranza was a bit short on detail but the diversity in admissions would be modeled on the ones in place in some districts for middle schools, giving priority to students who are English language learners, in temporary housing, etc.

Unclear to me how this lottery will work. It would be to fill seats that people turn down, which it sounded like usually go empty. But would it be a lottery among kids who took the G&T test but didn't get a placement? Or wider? Not sure.

First Deputy Mayor Dean Fuleihan says there will be a non-renewal written into this year's contract with Pearson for the G&T exam, which he is asking the panel to approve this year, even as he, City Hall and DOE say it's not a good way to select kids for G&T.

Also, with the mayor and chancellor constantly insisting they're making decisions and changes with the input of the community, kinda wild we're hearing about these changes right now during a PEP meeting for the first time!

10:49 pm and no vote in sight for the Panel for Educational Policy... there's gotta be a better way to do this than voting on contracts in the middle of the night, right?

yep: https://twitter.com/MichaelElsenRoo/status/1354640871799533571?s=20

A speaker in favor of G&T programs is arguing the city has "dismantled" G&T programs in outerborough communities of color.

But... the test itself is actually part of why that happened, at least that's my understanding.

The system used to be more localized. Under Bloomberg, the city moved to a centralized test everyone took -- in an effort to diversify the system with a less subjective measure.

But few kids in those neighborhoods met those standards, and with not enough kids, programs closed.

That's also a good reminder that the test given to four-year-old isn't sacrosanct. It's relatively new. When I went to NYC public schools, it wasn't how students got into gifted classes.

Anywho, there are a lot of different questions here.
Is the test at 4 the best way to determine gifted kids?

But the bigger question is: Does it make sense to separate out those gifted kids at all, in a public school system?

The education word for that is tracking, and the argument against it is basically -- all kids in a public school system are equally entitled to attend good schools, not just the ones who score highest on tests.

Likewise, they note the programs sometime create very non-diverse classrooms in otherwise diverse schools. What's the message to the other kids in the school, especially when so many parents seem downright fearful of their kids being in a different class?

But, proponents of gifted and talented education argue some students need accelerated education, and that enrichment on top of a regular curriculum aren't enough.

There is also a lot of bristling from parents who are pushing back against criticism that the system serves the privileged -- pointing out that many G&T students are Asian-American, a community with a high poverty rate.

Just like the SHSAT debate, there's a feeling that the city is targeting Asian students and saying there are too many of them in certain programs.

Anyway, it's 11:22, and I THINK we're getting close to the end of the speaker list for the general public ahead of this contract vote.

Oh, and I didn't even get into the whole aspect of a 4-year-old taking a test. There is an argument there that it's a test of whether a parent has spent time (or in some cases money) preparing the child for an exam, since it's not like the 4-year-old is going to the library.

A speaker says schools aren't segregated because of G&T but because of real estate. But even within diverse neighborhood schools, G&T programs usually are not very diverse.

Well! We've reached the end of the public comment period.

PEP Chair Vanessa Leung says she will vote against the contract -- saying she cannot say it is a good use of the city's resources in a time of risk and uncertainty. She goes on to say some arguments in its favor are rooted in "anti-blackness..."

...and reads a statement from a parent who said, essentially, Asian parents are more willing to focus on education with their kids than Black and Hispanic parents are.

Thomas Sheppard is a no vote.

Brand new PEP member Larian Angelo, appointed by the mayor so recently she does not appear to be listed on the PEP website, says she's a yes, for parents depending on it.

Isaac Carmignani also a yes.

"There's part of me that is angry that this has taken up so much of our time," PEP member Lori Podvesker says, when we're talking about what's basically 2,000. Notes the group is MUCH smaller than those getting special needs, after several speakers compared the two. Votes no.

Queens appointee Deborah Dillingham speaks at length and from the heart about her own doubts and frustrations with G&T, before ultimately noting the position of the Queens BP and finally voting yes.

PEP member Gary Linnen is a no, swayed in part by so many CEC members speaking out against the contract.

Kathy Park Price is also a no and says one of the limited ways the PEP can actually change policy is through contracts.

"My vote today is for my conscience, because at the end of the day I've got to get to sleep, whenever that is," PEP member Shannon Waite says. She's a no vote.

"We love our children too. We care about our babies," Waite says to parents who argued some cultures focus on educating their children. Some families "work two or three jobs for them, they checked out the groceries that you ate all throughout this pandemic," she adds.

Waite, who was appointed by the mayor (who wants a yes vote here) goes on to say it's possible someone else will be sitting in her seat next month.

Another new mayoral appointee, Eric Henry, is voting yes. Believe we are 6 no votes and 4 yes votes right now. The contract needs 8 yes votes to pass.

Bronx borough appointee Geneal Chacon says "putting my personal feelings aside and my individual vote of what I would vote," she is voting yes.

All right, that's the end of discussion of the contracts, but now there will be an actual roll call vote. They're voting on less controversial contracts now, including ceramic and tile replacement.

BIG: The contract with Pearson has been voted down. 8 no and 7 yes.

Additional no votes came from Peter Calandrella and April Chapman.

This is a big deal. It seems virtually impossible now for the city to test students for the gifted and talented program in April as he has intended to do.

Most of the members are appointed by the mayor; here, several of them voted against his plan.

Frankly, we are in "stunning rebuke" territory with this vote tonight.