Achievement gaps and gifted & talented or test-in programs

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

This is a bit offensive, don't you think? Besides, close the gap and you won't need to "implement options" to draw in "high quality" students.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

"High quality?" Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"High quality?" Really?

Substitute "advanced learner" for "high quality student" if the latter term offends you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"High quality?" Really?

meh, go for what she's getting at, nobody uses the perfect words.

Here's the thing, the achievement gaps are a big problem for test-in schools. If the gap is such that the test-in standards are set above the top percentage of some groups and in the sweet spot for another group, you may have a facially fair system with a clear non-diverse result. Some people may love that but I best most of DC does not and it would not make for a politically palatable system.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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.......

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

yes

[Anonymous]

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.

Yay let's celebrate eugenics!

[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.

In the US, it's not necessarily so much about IQ - most of the high achievers are driven by motivated families, whereas the remainder making up the other side across the gap are suffering from poor work ethic and a host of other problems.