Fairfax County Begins to Dumb Down Gifted (GT) Program to Support Diversity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't support affirmative action in elementary school AAP programs.

Establish good standards, be color blind, stick to it.

08:24 here -- I agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our DD is in the AAP program and we love the diversity in her class. I haven't seen any indication that diversity has dumbed down the program. If anything, some kids just learn differently than others, but I'm not seeing race as a factor in this. Our DD is caucasian and I would guess she's middle of the pack. There are brilliant kids of all backgrounds in her class; she's learned so much from being with this peer group. I'm glad she's in a diverse environment, which will go a long way toward helping her keep an open mind. Perhaps you could open your mind a bit more too, OP.

Yea.. there are bunch of Asians from all different backgrounds (Korean, Chinese, Indian, etc) right?
I guess they want to force some Blacks and Hispanics into the program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP If everyone deserves to be treated equally, then admissions to AAP and TJ should be solely based upon test scores.

This suggestion appears to make sense and would be a perfect solution, except for the fact that it is possible to study the types of questions presented on the test enough that you can actually increase your score beyond what you could get without this kind of study focus. Some kids will do well on the test because they are truly that smart; some will only do well because they have been working and working on practice tests for a year or more before the administration of the exam. Which type of child do we want at TJ: the naturally smart child or the one who only appears to be smart because of the hours of test prep? Which child will benefit most from the program at TJ?

TJ should be a place for the smartest kids who are interested in STEM subjects and it should not matter whether you have parents who have the background and money to make you competitive. It is a public school and it should be serving the *truly* most capable no matter what their color or background.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP If everyone deserves to be treated equally, then admissions to AAP and TJ should be solely based upon test scores.

This suggestion appears to make sense and would be a perfect solution, except for the fact that it is possible to study the types of questions presented on the test enough that you can actually increase your score beyond what you could get without this kind of study focus. Some kids will do well on the test because they are truly that smart; some will only do well because they have been working and working on practice tests for a year or more before the administration of the exam. Which type of child do we want at TJ: the naturally smart child or the one who only appears to be smart because of the hours of test prep? Which child will benefit most from the program at TJ?

TJ should be a place for the smartest kids who are interested in STEM subjects and it should not matter whether you have parents who have the background and money to make you competitive. It is a public school and it should be serving the *truly* most capable no matter what their color or background.

I guess it should be reserved for those who can score highly on standardized tests with no preparation or or drive. Those who "study and focus" and simply "appears to be smart because of hours of prep" should be taught a lesson by not being admitted. We should all discourage that kind of hard work for results by enforcing the notion that children should be limited by their inherent ability should not advance beyond it through smart preparation or individual hard work. Lets make sure another Rudy never rises to the Notre Dame football team! By the way, there are more factors that are considered besides standardized tests, such as grades and other academic activities, but again these may be clouded by those who choose to prepare in order to present the best application.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't support affirmative action in elementary school AAP programs.

Establish good standards, be color blind, stick to it.

This seemly simple and fair concept is impossible for the social engineering liberals who run the gifted programs to embrace. It would mean admitting the real world cannot be made to fit into the box of their desired utopian world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:TJ should be a place for the smartest kids who are interested in STEM subjects

Exactly. But TJ has become the Holy Grail for GT - even if the kids ultimately are not interested in STEM.

http://commweb.fcps.edu/newsreleases/newsrelease.cfm?newsid=1707


Wednesday, May 04, 2011

Twenty-Nine FCPS Students Named National Merit Scholarship Winners

The National Merit Scholarship Corporation (NMSC) has named 29 Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) students winners of $2,500 National Merit® Scholarships. The students are part of a group of approximately 2,500 National Merit® finalists chosen to receive scholarships primarily financed by the NMSC.

Winners of the scholarships, with their probable career fields in parentheses, are:

[edited]

• [name edited] of TJHSST (psychology).
• [name edited] of TJHSST (law).
• [name edited] of TJHSST (graphic design-foreign language).
• [name edited] of TJHSST (international relations).
• [name edited] of TJHSST (international relations).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
• [name edited] of TJHSST (psychology).
• [name edited] of TJHSST (law).
• [name edited] of TJHSST (graphic design-foreign language).
• [name edited] of TJHSST (international relations).
• [name edited] of TJHSST (international relations).

Well, to be fair, sometimes kids do change their minds between eighth grade and 12th grade!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP If everyone deserves to be treated equally, then admissions to AAP and TJ should be solely based upon test scores.

This suggestion appears to make sense and would be a perfect solution, except for the fact that it is possible to study the types of questions presented on the test enough that you can actually increase your score beyond what you could get without this kind of study focus. Some kids will do well on the test because they are truly that smart; some will only do well because they have been working and working on practice tests for a year or more before the administration of the exam. Which type of child do we want at TJ: the naturally smart child or the one who only appears to be smart because of the hours of test prep? Which child will benefit most from the program at TJ?

TJ should be a place for the smartest kids who are interested in STEM subjects and it should not matter whether you have parents who have the background and money to make you competitive. It is a public school and it should be serving the *truly* most capable no matter what their color or background.

I guess it should be reserved for those who can score highly on standardized tests with no preparation or or drive. Those who "study and focus" and simply "appears to be smart because of hours of prep" should be taught a lesson by not being admitted. We should all discourage that kind of hard work for results by enforcing the notion that children should be limited by their inherent ability should not advance beyond it through smart preparation or individual hard work. Lets make sure another Rudy never rises to the Notre Dame football team! By the way, there are more factors that are considered besides standardized tests, such as grades and other academic activities, but again these may be clouded by those who choose to prepare in order to present the best application.

The concern is that the test is being "gamed." Practicing test questions over and over enables someone to do well on a test, but someone who does well on the test because of reading widely and being curious about many subjects is probably a better student. It is possible for a student without real aptitude to to learn how to take the test by taking practice tests over and over. They can get used to the questions and how they are asked and do well even if they haven't really learned the subject matter. And that is why the admissions committee also looks at grades, activities, and teacher recommendations. That is what helps the committee to find the students who will most benefit from TJ.

[Anonymous]

Not related to TJ, but I know multiple kids that prepped, then Aced the SAT's, then flunked out of college.


The real problem with TJ is that it is so selective that there really is not a difference between the finalists and those admitted.

As for AAP in general, they do not limit the number of slots, which means that adding more kids will not keep anyone out, and if they are capable, they will not hurt your kid

[Anonymous]

That is what helps the committee to find the students who will most benefit from TJ.

This is what provides the wiggle room for social engineering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP If everyone deserves to be treated equally, then admissions to AAP and TJ should be solely based upon test scores.

This suggestion appears to make sense and would be a perfect solution, except for the fact that it is possible to study the types of questions presented on the test enough that you can actually increase your score beyond what you could get without this kind of study focus. Some kids will do well on the test because they are truly that smart; some will only do well because they have been working and working on practice tests for a year or more before the administration of the exam. Which type of child do we want at TJ: the naturally smart child or the one who only appears to be smart because of the hours of test prep? Which child will benefit most from the program at TJ?

TJ should be a place for the smartest kids who are interested in STEM subjects and it should not matter whether you have parents who have the background and money to make you competitive. It is a public school and it should be serving the *truly* most capable no matter what their color or background.

I guess it should be reserved for those who can score highly on standardized tests with no preparation or or drive. Those who "study and focus" and simply "appears to be smart because of hours of prep" should be taught a lesson by not being admitted. We should all discourage that kind of hard work for results by enforcing the notion that children should be limited by their inherent ability should not advance beyond it through smart preparation or individual hard work. Lets make sure another Rudy never rises to the Notre Dame football team! By the way, there are more factors that are considered besides standardized tests, such as grades and other academic activities, but again these may be clouded by those who choose to prepare in order to present the best application.

The concern is that the test is being "gamed." Practicing test questions over and over enables someone to do well on a test, but someone who does well on the test because of reading widely and being curious about many subjects is probably a better student. It is possible for a student without real aptitude to to learn how to take the test by taking practice tests over and over. They can get used to the questions and how they are asked and do well even if they haven't really learned the subject matter. And that is why the admissions committee also looks at grades, activities, and teacher recommendations. That is what helps the committee to find the students who will most benefit from TJ.

Please provide a link to the data that supports the your assertion that "someone who does well on the test because of reading widely and being curious about many subjects is probably a better student". I could just as easily assert that a student who shows the drive and study habits to prepare for the entrance exam will probably do better in TJ or AAP since they are more organized, goal oriented, industrious, focused, etc. Maybe they achieved good grades and scores through hard work, rather than a lazy approach relying on intrinsic ability. Making generalizations as to those who do best, without offering any supporting data is an insult to everyone's intelligence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not related to TJ, but I know multiple kids that prepped, then Aced the SAT's, then flunked out of college.


The real problem with TJ is that it is so selective that there really is not a difference between the finalists and those admitted.

As for AAP in general, they do not limit the number of slots, which means that adding more kids will not keep anyone out, and if they are capable, they will not hurt your kid

And I know many kids who prepped for the SAT and did exceptionally well in college. I know others who did not prep for the SATs, did well on them and then flunked out of college. So what is your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP If everyone deserves to be treated equally, then admissions to AAP and TJ should be solely based upon test scores.

This suggestion appears to make sense and would be a perfect solution, except for the fact that it is possible to study the types of questions presented on the test enough that you can actually increase your score beyond what you could get without this kind of study focus. Some kids will do well on the test because they are truly that smart; some will only do well because they have been working and working on practice tests for a year or more before the administration of the exam. Which type of child do we want at TJ: the naturally smart child or the one who only appears to be smart because of the hours of test prep? Which child will benefit most from the program at TJ?

TJ should be a place for the smartest kids who are interested in STEM subjects and it should not matter whether you have parents who have the background and money to make you competitive. It is a public school and it should be serving the *truly* most capable no matter what their color or background.

I guess it should be reserved for those who can score highly on standardized tests with no preparation or or drive. Those who "study and focus" and simply "appears to be smart because of hours of prep" should be taught a lesson by not being admitted. We should all discourage that kind of hard work for results by enforcing the notion that children should be limited by their inherent ability should not advance beyond it through smart preparation or individual hard work. Lets make sure another Rudy never rises to the Notre Dame football team! By the way, there are more factors that are considered besides standardized tests, such as grades and other academic activities, but again these may be clouded by those who choose to prepare in order to present the best application.

The concern is that the test is being "gamed." Practicing test questions over and over enables someone to do well on a test, but someone who does well on the test because of reading widely and being curious about many subjects is probably a better student. It is possible for a student without real aptitude to to learn how to take the test by taking practice tests over and over. They can get used to the questions and how they are asked and do well even if they haven't really learned the subject matter. And that is why the admissions committee also looks at grades, activities, and teacher recommendations. That is what helps the committee to find the students who will most benefit from TJ.

Please provide a link to the data that supports the your assertion that "someone who does well on the test because of reading widely and being curious about many subjects is probably a better student". I could just as easily assert that a student who shows the drive and study habits to prepare for the entrance exam will probably do better in TJ or AAP since they are more organized, goal oriented, industrious, focused, etc. Maybe they achieved good grades and scores through hard work, rather than a lazy approach relying on intrinsic ability. Making generalizations as to those who do best, without offering any supporting data is an insult to everyone's intelligence.

Why would someone with intrinsic ability have a "lazy approach"? "[S]omeone who does well on the test because of reading widely and being curious about many subjects" is probably also "organized, goal oriented, industrious, focused, etc." A lazy child likely will not do well on the test. I want our future doctors and scientists to have innate ability and curiosity along with the being goal oriented and industrious. I don't want my future doctor when I'm in a nursing home to be someone who just learned how to answer test questions really well!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not related to TJ, but I know multiple kids that prepped, then Aced the SAT's, then flunked out of college.


The real problem with TJ is that it is so selective that there really is not a difference between the finalists and those admitted.

As for AAP in general, they do not limit the number of slots, which means that adding more kids will not keep anyone out, and if they are capable, they will not hurt your kid

And I know many kids who prepped for the SAT and did exceptionally well in college. I know others who did not prep for the SATs, did well on them and then flunked out of college. So what is your point?

My point is entrance tests are metrics that do not mean much. But they are metrics, so they must be good.

[Anonymous]

Why would someone with intrinsic ability have a "lazy approach"? "[S]omeone who does well on the test because of reading widely and being curious about many subjects" is probably also "organized, goal oriented, industrious, focused, etc." A lazy child likely will not do well on the test. I want our future doctors and scientists to have innate ability and curiosity along with the being goal oriented and industrious. I don't want my future doctor when I'm in a nursing home to be someone who just learned how to answer test questions really well!

Again, you're just speculating. Someone who does well on the test is PROBABLY organized, goal-oriented, industrious, etc.?? Why isn't the opposite just as likely to be true? I was always an excellent standardized test taker (think 99th percentile on just about everything I took going through school) but I was never really pushed very hard in school and, because things came so easily, I didn't have to work very hard or be very organized to maintain straight As. I'm one of the least ambitious/industrious people I know! Things turned out ok for me in the end because while I was floundering around at college, I realized that I would soon graduate and have to get a job in the real world, so I thought, "Why not take the LSAT and go to law school instead?" So I signed up for the LSAT & didn't prepare, though I knew other people were taking the Kaplan course or whatever prep courses there were. I didn't see the point in spending money or time on a prep course. Sure enough, 98th percentile. I guess if I had prepared, maybe I would have scored in the 99th? I did have to work hard in law school because that was the first time that I was surrounded by - and competing with - really bright people who were also really hard workers. But I assure you, lazy children can do extremely well on all kinds of aptitude tests! Test scores alone do NOT indicate a child's work habits.