Program to "make" students gifted

[Anonymous]

So, testing is "biased."
Teacher observations are "biased."

At what point do you not get to blame "bias"?

[Anonymous]

How the h@ll is a test that uses shapes and figures, like the NNAT, biased??

Bunch of whiners claiming victim status. All you have to do is cry raaaaaacist and you get your way

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The program in this article is a blatant attempt to boost "diversity" numbers.

Or rephrased without the contempt, the program in this article is an attempt to correct for bias embedded in the screening mechanisms for their gifted program.

In addition, it seems like this program is attempting to correct not only for testing bias, but to address the fact that children from minority/low socioeconomic backgrounds often miss out on the support at home and outside of school that can cultivate gifted traits. Look at the characteristics that are on the list to identify students for the program - they line up with gifted behavior traits. I think the headline is pretty telling: "Can schools create gifted students" They aren't trying to make children gifted, but rather to foster the development of kids who are "gifted" but haven't had the same developmental support to develop into "testable" gifted students.

The fact that certain groups score lower on tests is not proof the tests are biased against them.

Just like if I didn't get a job as a dentist, it's not because I'm female. It's because I am not, in fact, qualified to be dentist.

If a child doesn't have support at home, it's the fault of the parents, not the people who construct tests. Whoever called this "professional victims" is spot on. Take responsibility for yourself and quit blaming other people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The program in this article is a blatant attempt to boost "diversity" numbers.

Or rephrased without the contempt, the program in this article is an attempt to correct for bias embedded in the screening mechanisms for their gifted program.

In addition, it seems like this program is attempting to correct not only for testing bias, but to address the fact that children from minority/low socioeconomic backgrounds often miss out on the support at home and outside of school that can cultivate gifted traits. Look at the characteristics that are on the list to identify students for the program - they line up with gifted behavior traits. I think the headline is pretty telling: "Can schools create gifted students" They aren't trying to make children gifted, but rather to foster the development of kids who are "gifted" but haven't had the same developmental support to develop into "testable" gifted students.

The fact that certain groups score lower on tests is not proof the tests are biased against them.

Just like if I didn't get a job as a dentist, it's not because I'm female. It's because I am not, in fact, qualified to be dentist.

If a child doesn't have support at home, it's the fault of the parents, not the people who construct tests. Whoever called this "professional victims" is spot on. Take responsibility for yourself and quit blaming other people.

It doesn't matter whose fault it is. The point is, how can a school system screen for who would benefit from a more advanced curriculum. Whether parents haven't provided the same opportunities as other parents or the test is biased, the result is the same -- not properly identifying all the students who could indeed benefit from a more advanced curriculum.

[Anonymous]

MoCo is examining the same issue. I don't think MCPS is happy with the fact its magnet program is serving "mainly" two groups and not enough blacks and Latinos. FFPS maybe thinking the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, testing is "biased."
Teacher observations are "biased."

At what point do you not get to blame "bias"?

Bias is a real thing. Do you also believe that climate change is a myth and that dinosaurs lived on earth at the same time as modern humans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How the h@ll is a test that uses shapes and figures, like the NNAT, biased??

Bunch of whiners claiming victim status. All you have to do is cry raaaaaacist and you get your way

I can't speak to the NNAT, but on the CogAT this year, one of the questions was a picture of a score board, a basketball hoop, and "a box with a line missing from the top and a line sticking down from the bottom". In other words, a football goal, but my daughter had been clueless about what the picture was supposed to be (probably because she has never watched a football game). A soccer goal seems like it would have been a more universal picture. I'm sure you are going to come up with some snarky remark about how I'm bitter she missed a question, but the point I'm trying to make is that there are small things that can skew a test result that have nothing to do with a child's intelligence. I'm not concerned about my daughter, but I am concerned about her classmates whose parents aren't able to provide for them in the same ways that I am for her, and how we as a society can support those families and children so that everyone is able to have a chance at the best outcomes possible. Programs like this seem like an excellent effort to test out a theory and see if it is something that can make a small difference toward that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course all students benefit from high expectations and high level instruction. Lots of research has shown that people are influenced by others' expectations of them. Here's just one article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106815408551985600

Segregating kids into two distinct tracks that will last through high school and beyond (since it's so much easier to get into TJ from a center) based on test scores when a child is in 2nd grade is really harmful.

And one solution is to get rid of TJ.

The demand for AAP Centers would drop precipitously.

An even better solution would be not to start the rigid groupings at age 7. Wait until quality school for all has leveled the playing field a bit and for kids who might just be late bloomers to declare themselves.

I agree! Time to get rid of AP and IB and Honors and AAP and band, chorus, orchestra, theatre, and arts. Just give the kids what they need -- reading BG, writing and arithmetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, testing is "biased."
Teacher observations are "biased."

At what point do you not get to blame "bias"?

Bias is a real thing. Do you also believe that climate change is a myth and that dinosaurs lived on earth at the same time as modern humans?

Nice try. Doubting the level of "bias" involved in testing is much more reasonable than doubting climate change or the human timeline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course all students benefit from high expectations and high level instruction. Lots of research has shown that people are influenced by others' expectations of them. Here's just one article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106815408551985600

Segregating kids into two distinct tracks that will last through high school and beyond (since it's so much easier to get into TJ from a center) based on test scores when a child is in 2nd grade is really harmful.

And one solution is to get rid of TJ.

The demand for AAP Centers would drop precipitously.

An even better solution would be not to start the rigid groupings at age 7. Wait until quality school for all has leveled the playing field a bit and for kids who might just be late bloomers to declare themselves.

I agree! Time to get rid of AP and IB and Honors and AAP and band, chorus, orchestra, theatre, and arts. Just give the kids what they need -- reading BG, writing and arithmetic.

Saying that assigning kids to a special school based on test scores when they are 7 is not at all the same thing as suggesting getting rid of high school art and music. If you have nothing relevant to add, my argument must be correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course all students benefit from high expectations and high level instruction. Lots of research has shown that people are influenced by others' expectations of them. Here's just one article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106815408551985600

Segregating kids into two distinct tracks that will last through high school and beyond (since it's so much easier to get into TJ from a center) based on test scores when a child is in 2nd grade is really harmful.

And one solution is to get rid of TJ.

The demand for AAP Centers would drop precipitously.

An even better solution would be not to start the rigid groupings at age 7. Wait until quality school for all has leveled the playing field a bit and for kids who might just be late bloomers to declare themselves.

Good point. Let's all meet at the lowest common denominator and then work from there.

[Anonymous]

Saying that assigning kids to a special school based on test scores when they are 7 is not at all the same thing as suggesting getting rid of high school art and music. If you have nothing relevant to add, my argument must be correct.

Huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, testing is "biased."
Teacher observations are "biased."

At what point do you not get to blame "bias"?

Bias is a real thing. Do you also believe that climate change is a myth and that dinosaurs lived on earth at the same time as modern humans?

+1

Teacher bias was studied in 2005, when a team of researchers gave 207 elementary school teachers vignettes about a student with gifted traits and asked them to decide whether the student should be considered for accelerated classes. A third of the teachers were told the student they were considering was white, a third were told the student was black, and a third weren’t told the student’s race. Teachers who believed the student was African-American were least likely to recommend accelerated

But yea, no bias there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How the h@ll is a test that uses shapes and figures, like the NNAT, biased??

Bunch of whiners claiming victim status. All you have to do is cry raaaaaacist and you get your way

I can't speak to the NNAT, but on the CogAT this year, one of the questions was a picture of a score board, a basketball hoop, and "a box with a line missing from the top and a line sticking down from the bottom". In other words, a football goal, but my daughter had been clueless about what the picture was supposed to be (probably because she has never watched a football game). A soccer goal seems like it would have been a more universal picture. I'm sure you are going to come up with some snarky remark about how I'm bitter she missed a question, but the point I'm trying to make is that there are small things that can skew a test result that have nothing to do with a child's intelligence. I'm not concerned about my daughter, but I am concerned about her classmates whose parents aren't able to provide for them in the same ways that I am for her, and how we as a society can support those families and children so that everyone is able to have a chance at the best outcomes possible. Programs like this seem like an excellent effort to test out a theory and see if it is something that can make a small difference toward that.

How in the world do you know what the questions were?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course all students benefit from high expectations and high level instruction. Lots of research has shown that people are influenced by others' expectations of them. Here's just one article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106815408551985600

Segregating kids into two distinct tracks that will last through high school and beyond (since it's so much easier to get into TJ from a center) based on test scores when a child is in 2nd grade is really harmful.

And one solution is to get rid of TJ.

The demand for AAP Centers would drop precipitously.

An even better solution would be not to start the rigid groupings at age 7. Wait until quality school for all has leveled the playing field a bit and for kids who might just be late bloomers to declare themselves.

The groupings in FCPS aren't rigid. Every year through MS, your DC has the opportunity to place into AAP. We're at a Center, snd more kids qualify in eac year. The program is there for the kids who are ready for it in 3rd. But the "late bloomer" who isn't ready until 6th can also become LLIV eligible at that point. So win-win.