” The super-smart kids will be bored in the not-so-gifted programs, but they’re a small minority. ” Aren’t black people a minority too?

The reason I like my explanation is that it doesn’t require an especially evil breed of humanity. Just the run-of-the-mill human conceits and vices.

Good points. I guess I am just a little more cynical that you are. When liberals blindly support the teachers’ union in their opposition to vouchers for students in failing inner city schools it is clear that they just don’t care whether or not blacks succeed. The only thing they are concerned about is their own political power.

I have commented in the past that liberals appear to want blacks to fail so that they would continue to vote Democrat.

Nonsense. The black kids are merely a means to an end as are all other groups/issues coveted by liberals. The end is the triumphant public display of liberal, moral superiority. Once that end is attained or is clearly beyond attainment, the left loses interest.

While there may be the occasional deep thinker who sees the arranging of outrages in order to radicalize the population as a useful ploy the bulk of liberals aren’t that engaged. They’ll huff and puff about racism, exchange especially clever insults about racists but they won’t commit overtly racist, violent acts in order to inflame the population. Too much effort, too much risk.

Here we have documented proof that liberal policies are designed to make blacks underachieve.

I don’t believe that underachievement is the intent even if it is the outcome. Occam’s Razor argues against it. The simpler, and I believe more digestible, explanation, is that liberal policies are designed to maximize moral rewards for supporters while minimizing risk and effort.

If the policy turns out to be ineffective or even counter-effective there are always excuses with which to deflect responsibility away from the policy and its supporters. Funding’s inadequate, institutional, unconscious or legacy racism’s to blame, the parents aren’t good enough or the kids aren’t good enough. The stated goal of the policy is largely immaterial but the underlying goal of effort-free, risk-free evidence of moral superiority is worth writing the occasional check or slapping on the occasional bumper-sticker.

With friends like that, blacks do not need “racists” to hold them back.

Yeah, I’ve thought for some time that a “Hero of the Ku Klux Klan” medal ought to be awarded annually to the person or persons who does the most to support the traditional goals of the Klan. I see strong nominees in the superintendent’s office and the board of the Detroit Public School system going back some years.

The gifted program director doesn’t know the difference between “good” and “well”, and we should take her opinion?

Does anyone really believe that a 120 IQ kid who works harder can’t achieve at least at the level of a 130 IQ kid who does tha national average of 2 hours a week of studying?

Just make sure that the door to “gifted” classes swings both ways and don’t worry that a few kids who didn’t nail the IQ test get a chance to challenge themselves.

Other than seeing some “diversity” goals achieved, how will anyone be benefited by such a ploy?

Wayne, you’ve got to stop answering questions in the same sentence that you ask them. It takes away from the time you can apply to understanding the desperate importance of attaining undefinable goals.

But what would the results be? Would more IQ.120 kids go to college if they sat in “gifted” classes? Is there any possibility that these IQ.120 kids might not do as well as the IQ.130 kids, and their grades suffer? Other than seeing some “diversity” goals achieved, how will anyone be benefited by such a ploy?

Tracking works so well. It’s a shame someone doesn’t see that and reinstitute this approach to letting kids rise to their own level.