How to ace the HOPE

[Anonymous]

If you are a teacher that fills these HOPE worksheets, can you provide practical examples on what you noticed that caused you to assign a "Always" or "Almost Always" rating for one or more of these attributes:
(please provide practical examples what the student did in the classroom or said/asked the teacher )

1) Performs or shows potential for performing at remarkably high levels.

2) Is sensitive to larger or deeper issues of human concern.

3) Is self-aware.

4) Shows compassion for others.

5) Is a leader within their group of peers.

6) Is eager to explore new concepts.

7) Exhibits intellectual intensity.

8) Effectively interacts with adults or older students.

9) Uses alternative approaches or processes.

10) Thinks "outside the box.”

11) Has intense interests.

[Anonymous]

If you’re a teacher who filled this form out at the end of the quarter, can you please explain how you’re supposed to be able to rate a child on all these things after having taught them for just over two months?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you’re a teacher who filled this form out at the end of the quarter, can you please explain how you’re supposed to be able to rate a child on all these things after having taught them for just over two months?

Amen to that! It's a bunch of bull 💩 .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you are a teacher that fills these HOPE worksheets, can you provide practical examples on what you noticed that caused you to assign a "Always" or "Almost Always" rating for one or more of these attributes:
(please provide practical examples what the student did in the classroom or said/asked the teacher )
Academic:
======
1) Performs or shows potential for performing at remarkably high levels.
6) Is eager to explore new concepts.
7) Exhibits intellectual intensity.
9) Uses alternative approaches or processes.
10) Thinks "outside the box.”
11) Has intense interests.

Social:
=====
2) Is sensitive to larger or deeper issues of human concern.
3) Is self-aware.
4) Shows compassion for others.
5) Is a leader within their group of peers.
8) Effectively interacts with adults or older students.

https://davis.agendaonline.net/public/Meeting/Attachments/DisplayAttachment.aspx?AttachmentID=238383&IsArchive=0

Items 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 are Academic. Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 are Social. Academic subscore and Social subscore are compiled by student group - based on ethnicity, income group, etc.? Students are not compared as whole but within the subgroup they belong to? Is this how it works?
Is there a link to the entire HOPE administration manual?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are a teacher that fills these HOPE worksheets, can you provide practical examples on what you noticed that caused you to assign a "Always" or "Almost Always" rating for one or more of these attributes:
(please provide practical examples what the student did in the classroom or said/asked the teacher )
Academic:
======
1) Performs or shows potential for performing at remarkably high levels.
6) Is eager to explore new concepts.
7) Exhibits intellectual intensity.
9) Uses alternative approaches or processes.
10) Thinks "outside the box.”
11) Has intense interests.

Social:
=====
2) Is sensitive to larger or deeper issues of human concern.
3) Is self-aware.
4) Shows compassion for others.
5) Is a leader within their group of peers.
8) Effectively interacts with adults or older students.

https://davis.agendaonline.net/public/Meeting/Attachments/DisplayAttachment.aspx?AttachmentID=238383&IsArchive=0

Items 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 are Academic. Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 are Social. Academic subscore and Social subscore are compiled by student group - based on ethnicity, income group, etc.? Students are not compared as whole but within the subgroup they belong to? Is this how it works?
Is there a link to the entire HOPE administration manual?

How does FCPS obtain parents income data?
And grouping by ethnicity? isn't this legally risky?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you’re a teacher who filled this form out at the end of the quarter, can you please explain how you’re supposed to be able to rate a child on all these things after having taught them for just over two months?

It's a way to bypass equity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are a teacher that fills these HOPE worksheets, can you provide practical examples on what you noticed that caused you to assign a "Always" or "Almost Always" rating for one or more of these attributes:
(please provide practical examples what the student did in the classroom or said/asked the teacher )
Academic:
======
1) Performs or shows potential for performing at remarkably high levels.
6) Is eager to explore new concepts.
7) Exhibits intellectual intensity.
9) Uses alternative approaches or processes.
10) Thinks "outside the box.”
11) Has intense interests.

Social:
=====
2) Is sensitive to larger or deeper issues of human concern.
3) Is self-aware.
4) Shows compassion for others.
5) Is a leader within their group of peers.
8) Effectively interacts with adults or older students.

https://davis.agendaonline.net/public/Meeting/Attachments/DisplayAttachment.aspx?AttachmentID=238383&IsArchive=0

Items 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 are Academic. Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 are Social. Academic subscore and Social subscore are compiled by student group - based on ethnicity, income group, etc.? Students are not compared as whole but within the subgroup they belong to? Is this how it works?
Is there a link to the entire HOPE administration manual?

How does FCPS obtain parents income data?
And grouping by ethnicity? isn't this legally risky?

It says "compare those from low-income families to .... low-income families". Likely from the reduced/free lunch application.

I think the way is questionable. "For example, when rating your students, try to compare those from low-income families to other children from low-income families, children from specific cultural groups to other children from the same cultural group, girls to girls, etc."

The instruction suggest comparing Asian students against other Asian students, so a Latino "Always" turns into an Asian "often"? The effect would be establishing certain gender or culture group "bias" that disfavors certain groups esp. those Asian groups might have a small sample size?

I am not fan of the crazy TJ lawsuit parent group but this instruction seems to imply such bias is baked into the evaluation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are a teacher that fills these HOPE worksheets, can you provide practical examples on what you noticed that caused you to assign a "Always" or "Almost Always" rating for one or more of these attributes:
(please provide practical examples what the student did in the classroom or said/asked the teacher )
Academic:
======
1) Performs or shows potential for performing at remarkably high levels.
6) Is eager to explore new concepts.
7) Exhibits intellectual intensity.
9) Uses alternative approaches or processes.
10) Thinks "outside the box.”
11) Has intense interests.

Social:
=====
2) Is sensitive to larger or deeper issues of human concern.
3) Is self-aware.
4) Shows compassion for others.
5) Is a leader within their group of peers.
8) Effectively interacts with adults or older students.

https://davis.agendaonline.net/public/Meeting/Attachments/DisplayAttachment.aspx?AttachmentID=238383&IsArchive=0

Items 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 are Academic. Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 are Social. Academic subscore and Social subscore are compiled by student group - based on ethnicity, income group, etc.? Students are not compared as whole but within the subgroup they belong to? Is this how it works?
Is there a link to the entire HOPE administration manual?

How does FCPS obtain parents income data?
And grouping by ethnicity? isn't this legally risky?

It says "compare those from low-income families to .... low-income families". Likely from the reduced/free lunch application.

I think the way is questionable. "For example, when rating your students, try to compare those from low-income families to other children from low-income families, children from specific cultural groups to other children from the same cultural group, girls to girls, etc."

The instruction suggest comparing Asian students against other Asian students, so a Latino "Always" turns into an Asian "often"? The effect would be establishing certain gender or culture group "bias" that disfavors certain groups esp. those Asian groups might have a small sample size?

I am not fan of the crazy TJ lawsuit parent group but this instruction seems to imply such bias is baked into the evaluation.

The core concept behind HOPE appears to be to promote equity and diversity in advanced academic programs (aka giftedness and talented), by applying different yard sticks to different demographic groups. When FCPS compares current representation with their predetermined diversity chart, Asian Americans are glaringly over-represented in AAP, and HOPE gives hope to balance their representation by creating competition within their ethnic group of students?

[Anonymous]

The social factors disadvantage 2E kids who may be on the spectrum. Isn’t there legal risk here?

[Anonymous]

Just know that AAP is about to slow down quite a bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The social factors disadvantage 2E kids who may be on the spectrum. Isn’t there legal risk here?

legal risk to who? it's tax payer money that'll foot the legal bill, if one arises, not the board member's pokets

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are a teacher that fills these HOPE worksheets, can you provide practical examples on what you noticed that caused you to assign a "Always" or "Almost Always" rating for one or more of these attributes:
(please provide practical examples what the student did in the classroom or said/asked the teacher )
Academic:
======
1) Performs or shows potential for performing at remarkably high levels.
6) Is eager to explore new concepts.
7) Exhibits intellectual intensity.
9) Uses alternative approaches or processes.
10) Thinks "outside the box.”
11) Has intense interests.

Social:
=====
2) Is sensitive to larger or deeper issues of human concern.
3) Is self-aware.
4) Shows compassion for others.
5) Is a leader within their group of peers.
8) Effectively interacts with adults or older students.

https://davis.agendaonline.net/public/Meeting/Attachments/DisplayAttachment.aspx?AttachmentID=238383&IsArchive=0

Items 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 are Academic. Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 are Social. Academic subscore and Social subscore are compiled by student group - based on ethnicity, income group, etc.? Students are not compared as whole but within the subgroup they belong to? Is this how it works?
Is there a link to the entire HOPE administration manual?

How does FCPS obtain parents income data?
And grouping by ethnicity? isn't this legally risky?

It says "compare those from low-income families to .... low-income families". Likely from the reduced/free lunch application.

I think the way is questionable. "For example, when rating your students, try to compare those from low-income families to other children from low-income families, children from specific cultural groups to other children from the same cultural group, girls to girls, etc."

The instruction suggest comparing Asian students against other Asian students, so a Latino "Always" turns into an Asian "often"? The effect would be establishing certain gender or culture group "bias" that disfavors certain groups esp. those Asian groups might have a small sample size?

I am not fan of the crazy TJ lawsuit parent group but this instruction seems to imply such bias is baked into the evaluation.

The core concept behind HOPE appears to be to promote equity and diversity in advanced academic programs (aka giftedness and talented), by applying different yard sticks to different demographic groups. When FCPS compares current representation with their predetermined diversity chart, Asian Americans are glaringly over-represented in AAP, and HOPE gives hope to balance their representation by creating competition within their ethnic group of students?

I am all in favor of balancing different groups. and I understand what you are saying,

But for simple evaluations such as "Has intense interests", you give an Asian kid an "often" instead of "Almost Always" just because he's compared to Asian group, is hardly justifiable. What about "Show compassions for others", which culture is showing "less" or "more" compassion for others? What about "Exhibit intellectual intensity", is a black kid's "often" become "almost always" just because the assumption is average black kid has less intellectual intensity?

If you flesh out the thinking process, it just sounds racist.

[Anonymous]

Well my black kid got a tons of nevers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well my black kid got a tons of nevers.

My black kid got a ton of Always, mostly in social. What school are you at?

[Anonymous]

http://www.harlan.k12.ky.us/pdf/Gifted&TalentedForms/HopeScaleDirections.pdf
No joke, HOPE is racist! Teachers are being forced to assess students based on their race:

"For example, when rating your students, try to compare those from low-income families to other children from low-income families, children from African-American families to other children from African-American families, (Asian Americans children to other Asian American children, White children to other White children), etc."