Achievement gaps and gifted & talented or test-in programs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK one of the problems in the U.S. is this assumption that IQ is determinative in terms of learning. Brilliant people on an IQ level often don't accomplish a great deal because they lack the work ethic. Also it is worth thinking about this in terms of working memory and fluidity. If we have a fixed amount of space in our working memory say 10 concepts, over time you can chunk concepts together so you can know more. Think spelling, math facts, vocabulary, That is dependent on work and being introduced to the right sets of information. Crappy schools amplify the gap between people with less working memory/fluidity i.e. IQ. Higher quality schools would enable students to work harder to know and make up for some of the advantages of IQ. They may actually accomplish more because they do have a work ethic. Quite a few researchers think this is really the difference you are seeing between the US and Europe and many Asian countries like S. Korea or Japan.

The issue in the U.S. is we do not have systematized curriculum that helps kids build a wide range of knowledge.

DCPS doesn't have a curricula, people always skip this when they are ranting and raving about DC schools. Henderson should be called out on this, but it is easier to blame the teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will we have to close the achievement gaps across demographics and class before we can implement top quality DCPS options to draw in high quality students?

The achievement gap has proven stubbornly hard to close and probably reflects fundamental social problems that cannot be addressed by education alone. Thus, if closing the achievement gap is a condition precedent to serving the needs of high quality students, the needs of those student will sadly continue to go unmet.

Or there are fundamental differences in the abilities of the different groups. I think this will become clear one way or another in the next 15-20 years as genetic testing/analysis progresses.

Wait, what?

Do you really want a response to this? Could it do any good, other than maybe prompt a disturbed laugh?

People keep coming back to ideas like this and strangely, they keep not quite finding enough proof... Hmmmmmm.......

The race-IQ connection is the third rail of genetics, e.g., James Watson. Thus, it's not strange at all, especially given that there is never enough evidence for die-hard skeptics.

Nevertheless, the question will likely be resolved in the next decade, especially as geneticists redefine the question as the more nuanced "population structure"-IQ connection.

For an interesting article on the subject, try "How the race, intelligence, and genetics question will semi-resolve within the next 10 years," by Razib Khan:http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/05/how-the-race-intelligence-and-genetics-question-will-semi-resolve-within-the-next-10-years/#.UqtylPRDuJE

The hypotheses espoused by "The Bell Curve" have largely been discredited by people who understand statistics. See, for instance, the work of Michael Kremer.

I read the blog post you suggested. The author has written some things that are factually incorrect, such as their suggestion that African-Americans with more European features have more European DNA. There is no scierntific basis for that assertion. Appearance does not necessarily reflect underlying differences in DNA. However, even if you accept his premise, when he said the question will be settled, the testing regime that he suggests could just as easily reveal no difference in intelligence across races, as his blog post indicates.

IQ tests also aren't really great at measuring inteligence. They invariably measure some component of learned knowledge, and they presume intelligence is static. Lessened knowledge can be altered, which is why all of those parents in upper NW and Manhattan are tutoring kids for the WPPSI exams, which supposedly measure intelligence. Intelligence sand cognitive performance also aren't static, and things like learning music and foreign languages can alter them.

[Anonymous]

blah blah blah...
Let's give all of DC's kids a fighting chance and then we can study their IQs.

An early poster mentioned the social problems, yes, that is what needs to be fixed. All children need parents who know how to care for their children. Why can't we help underprivileged parents by teaching life skills for parenting? If all of DCs kids had stable, calm, nourishing home lives our schools would look a whole lot different.

Let's start by making sure all kids have a safe, clean, calm place to go home to with nourishing food and adults who show them how valuable they are every day.

Save your science for later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will we have to close the achievement gaps across demographics and class before we can implement top quality DCPS options to draw in high quality students?

The achievement gap has proven stubbornly hard to close and probably reflects fundamental social problems that cannot be addressed by education alone. Thus, if closing the achievement gap is a condition precedent to serving the needs of high quality students, the needs of those student will sadly continue to go unmet.

Or there are fundamental differences in the abilities of the different groups. I think this will become clear one way or another in the next 15-20 years as genetic testing/analysis progresses.

Wait, what?

Do you really want a response to this? Could it do any good, other than maybe prompt a disturbed laugh?

People keep coming back to ideas like this and strangely, they keep not quite finding enough proof... Hmmmmmm.......

The race-IQ connection is the third rail of genetics, e.g., James Watson. Thus, it's not strange at all, especially given that there is never enough evidence for die-hard skeptics.

Nevertheless, the question will likely be resolved in the next decade, especially as geneticists redefine the question as the more nuanced "population structure"-IQ connection.

For an interesting article on the subject, try "How the race, intelligence, and genetics question will semi-resolve within the next 10 years," by Razib Khan:http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/05/how-the-race-intelligence-and-genetics-question-will-semi-resolve-within-the-next-10-years/#.UqtylPRDuJE

The hypotheses espoused by "The Bell Curve" have largely been discredited by people who understand statistics. See, for instance, the work of Michael Kremer.

I read the blog post you suggested. The author has written some things that are factually incorrect, such as their suggestion that African-Americans with more European features have more European DNA. There is no scierntific basis for that assertion. Appearance does not necessarily reflect underlying differences in DNA. However, even if you accept his premise, when he said the question will be settled, the testing regime that he suggests could just as easily reveal no difference in intelligence across races, as his blog post indicates.

IQ tests also aren't really great at measuring inteligence. They invariably measure some component of learned knowledge, and they presume intelligence is static. Lessened knowledge can be altered, which is why all of those parents in upper NW and Manhattan are tutoring kids for the WPPSI exams, which supposedly measure intelligence. Intelligence sand cognitive performance also aren't static, and things like learning music and foreign languages can alter them.

And the assertions have been backed up by other researchers. The PP was correct; people are scared to do this kind of research. That's why these new advances genetics is so interesting. BTW, I think you misread the blog post. The PP was saying that European appearance is NOT strictly driven by percentage of European background. He specifically wanted to test people who looked more African but had a larger percentage of European ancestry. I think this was so the ST threat argument could be excluded as well. And if course he said that it might prove to be false; that's what experiments are about. And if it did prove false, then it's a pretty good data point that the cognitive difference are driven by something other than genetics.

[Anonymous]

Honestly, I am shocked that some here seem to be saying that genetics have nothing to do with "smarts." Not everyone is born an Einstein. Not everyone is born a Michelangelo or a D'avinci or a Whitney Houston. Sure, I am sure Einstein's environment helped him thrive but not amount of prepping would have made him as smart as he was. My mom, no matter how much training she might have received never would have been a singer like Whitney. For heaven's sake, science is even finding that often people's mannerisms and personalities are greatly influenced by genetics. A family member had triplets and it was obvious at a few months of age that one was the anxious sort, another was the relaxed, happy go lucky sort, and the other was in between despite having the same environment! They have also found that identical twins raised apart often have the same mannerisms and other things in common as well. So for people to say the genes having nothing to do with "smarts" is just preposterous to me. Don't get me wrong, I think a nurturing environment helps, but it certainly is not everything.

[Anonymous]

I forgot to add that test prep will only take a kid so far as well. I do not believe it gives kids a huge advantage. Plus there are tons of free resources out there for prepping and tutoring kids.

[Anonymous]

Lastly, people need to get over the fact that we are all born with different abilities. Just because someone is better in academics does not make them better than someone else, but their educational needs should be met as well as those who are struggling. God loves all of us with our unique and differing abilities!

[Anonymous]

Of course genetics matter but kids cannot fully access their full potential without a stable beginning. The point is to not write off poor kids with the "not everyone can be Einstein" before seeing what they are fully capable of. Why can't we get everyone to a point where they can feel stable and cared for so that they can concentrate on school?

Right, not everyone is genius material-we come in all varieties. My own kids are all generally bright but one is a go-getter, one is lazy and the other just has things fall into her lap-same genetics, same environment-different levels of achievement. But because they are well nourished, well rested, are allowed to follow their interests and have their individual difficulties pointed out and worked on, we get to see what their potential really is.

I have worked in schools for years, special ed/regualr ed/privileged/diverse etc. What we see often are kids who come to school from a chaotic background. They come to school and experience some stability/routine, get food, have adults talk to them, care for them, help them, but they are not really ready to fully access all the academics yet, they are just working off the chaos. Just my opinion, but I have seen it, worked with it, been frustrated by it for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course genetics matter but kids cannot fully access their full potential without a stable beginning. The point is to not write off poor kids with the "not everyone can be Einstein" before seeing what they are fully capable of. Why can't we get everyone to a point where they can feel stable and cared for so that they can concentrate on school?

Right, not everyone is genius material-we come in all varieties. My own kids are all generally bright but one is a go-getter, one is lazy and the other just has things fall into her lap-same genetics, same environment-different levels of achievement. But because they are well nourished, well rested, are allowed to follow their interests and have their individual difficulties pointed out and worked on, we get to see what their potential really is.

I have worked in schools for years, special ed/regualr ed/privileged/diverse etc. What we see often are kids who come to school from a chaotic background. They come to school and experience some stability/routine, get food, have adults talk to them, care for them, help them, but they are not really ready to fully access all the academics yet, they are just working off the chaos. Just my opinion, but I have seen it, worked with it, been frustrated by it for years.

I agree that we should fully try to help kids in need. However, that does not mean we should neglect the needs of advanced learners until we get everyone else up to speed too. I think DC can both meet the needs of kids in need as well as advanced learners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course genetics matter but kids cannot fully access their full potential without a stable beginning. The point is to not write off poor kids with the "not everyone can be Einstein" before seeing what they are fully capable of. Why can't we get everyone to a point where they can feel stable and cared for so that they can concentrate on school?

Right, not everyone is genius material-we come in all varieties. My own kids are all generally bright but one is a go-getter, one is lazy and the other just has things fall into her lap-same genetics, same environment-different levels of achievement. But because they are well nourished, well rested, are allowed to follow their interests and have their individual difficulties pointed out and worked on, we get to see what their potential really is.

I have worked in schools for years, special ed/regualr ed/privileged/diverse etc. What we see often are kids who come to school from a chaotic background. They come to school and experience some stability/routine, get food, have adults talk to them, care for them, help them, but they are not really ready to fully access all the academics yet, they are just working off the chaos. Just my opinion, but I have seen it, worked with it, been frustrated by it for years.

Sure, I agree. All kids deserve an environment in which they can do their best. The original question was about the achievement gap. IF there are differences in average group abilities, then completely eliminating the achievement gap isn't feasible. I think we should provide the best environment possible (within fiscal reason) for the kids and try to get each kid to perform to the best of their abilities.

[Anonymous]

Skip the conspiracy theories. The achievement gaps are real, however. There will clearly be resentment of a school or schools with thresholds for entrance set above the top percentages of black, Hispanic, free-lunch, language learner, Ward 5 5th graders, etc.

However, the mere taking of an entrance exam is some indicator of motivation, either child or parental or community-based. So I would set any testing thresholds at a level that would not eliminate diversity and would still indicate some motivation and preparation. And I would nor substitute in the DC wide tests as a basis for entry. I would also locate any such school far away from Ward 3 and not on the Hill, maybe in Wards 4 or 5.

I believe there is a sweet spot on achievement levels that we can set and we just need to be cognizant of not breaking political support for such a school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Skip the conspiracy theories. The achievement gaps are real, however. There will clearly be resentment of a school or schools with thresholds for entrance set above the top percentages of black, Hispanic, free-lunch, language learner, Ward 5 5th graders, etc.

However, the mere taking of an entrance exam is some indicator of motivation, either child or parental or community-based. So I would set any testing thresholds at a level that would not eliminate diversity and would still indicate some motivation and preparation. And I would nor substitute in the DC wide tests as a basis for entry. I would also locate any such school far away from Ward 3 and not on the Hill, maybe in Wards 4 or 5.

I believe there is a sweet spot on achievement levels that we can set and we just need to be cognizant of not breaking political support for such a school.

Yes but watering down admission requirements like you propose might end up like TJ where they need to remediate 30% of freshmen in math. if such a watering down of admission criteria is made, then I suppose you would not be against tracking in such a school which would help to meet the diverse academic needs of the students or would you???

[Anonymous]

And then it turns out that most of the incoming freshmen needing remediation who got in through watered down admissions criteria just happen to be African American and then suddenly the focus is on "why are African Americans being targeted for remediation" not wanting to hear the sad reality that they are behind the other students in performance. This town has a serious problem with acknowledging reality.

[Anonymous]

Sigh...here we go again.

There's a very simple answer. DCPS can bus high quality students to Virginia for AAP

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/forums/show/60.page

Assuming we can implement mandatory genetic testing in utero or Hunger Games

[Anonymous]

The reality is that you cannot create a white and Asian school in DC. Don't try to create something you won't be able to achieve. Setting the bar above the achievement gap too far makes this a non starter.

And let's be optimistic. If this gets going and we have success in closing achievement gaps in DC, we can do better.

But don't go asking for a school that will only serve a couple of DC's tribes, even if for good reason. Access, equality and fairness are politically important.