Reaction to "Study of Choice and Special Academic Programs: Report of Findings and Recommendations"
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
I thought they do currently look at other things like teacher recommendations and grades in school. Yes, the test score is probably weighed more heavily, but a kid who scores high, but has really really bad grades and terrible teacher recommendations is probably not going to get into the magnet. |
Anonymous
Oooh... can I answer this one? 
1) Three different kids, based on their height it looks that one is in HS, one in MS and one in ES. Not the same requirements of needs. 2) The differences is inherent in the children itself (height or age in this case, race/indifferent parenting IRL) and not in the circumstances (for example rich kid is in a safe place home with computers and is able to study, poor kid has no computer and is in a gang-infested neighborhood OR Rich kid has enough to eat and has time to study AND poor kid has to take care of siblings and do a part time job). 3) The children are watching a game from outside the stadium, they have not paid the price of the tickets and so it is sort of a moral gray area. (For using as a graphic) 4)In the graphic, there is no actual participation in the game. These kids are only watching a game. There is no indication how all three could play in the game, instead of passively watching. But the reality is that for them to play in a game they need talent. 5) Equity would be to allow each child to participate in activities that align with their interest. Maybe child one wants participate in robotics competition, maybe the 2nd child want to participate in a singing competition, maybe the third wants to participate in a basketball competition. |
Anonymous
Oooh... can I answer this one? I am a marketing consultant. I am giving my advice to MCPS for free, even though I am not an URM and my kids are in magnet programs. When you use an image to get a point across - it has to be unambiguous. Much more than words. The idea has to come through clearly without room for any other interpretation.
1) Three different kids, based on their height it looks that one is in HS, one in MS and one in ES. Not the same requirements of needs. 2) The differences is inherent in the children itself (height or age in this case, race/indifferent parenting IRL) and not in the circumstances (for example rich kid is in a safe place home with computers and is able to study, poor kid has no computer and is in a gang-infested neighborhood OR Rich kid has enough to eat and has time to study AND poor kid has to take care of siblings and do a part time job). 3) The children are watching a game from outside the stadium, they have not paid the price of the tickets and so it is sort of a moral gray area, for being dishonest. (For using as a graphic) 4)In the graphic, there is no actual participation in the game. These kids are only watching a game. There is no indication how all three could play in the game, instead of passively watching. But the reality is that for them to play in a game they need talent. 5) Equity would be to allow each child to participate in activities that align with their interests. Maybe first child wants participate in robotics competition, maybe the second child want to participate in a singing competition, maybe the third wants to participate in a basketball competition. So, the concept of meeting needs is removed altogether. As a result, the perception is that MCPS staff responsible for equity are actually not looking at equity, they are looking to get more freebies for URM at the cost of Asian and Whites. 6) From a parental perspective, putting the smallest child on two boxes, increases the risk of him falling from a greater height, or being hit by an errant ball. He was safer under equality in some ways. So, a bad analogy and poor graphic choice. Makes me shake my head at the stupidity of MCPS staff. I am a marketing consultant. This is a very flawed image and if MCPS was my client I would not have used it. I also want to compare it with another image on the web, which I am guessing was the original image and idea which was modified to be used for the current purpose. The original was even more flawed. 
1) The color of the three individuals, suggested that the inquality was inherent within the Black community itself (The kid of the wealthy black lawyer and the kid of the minimum wage earning single black woman have different realities, and the wealthy kid still gets to use the affirmative action programs to further himself). So, in the graphic that MCPS used had three white individuals. Instead they should have used stick figures that did not suggest race or age. 2) The inherent dishonesty of watching a game without paying for the tickets for the game. Plays into the perception of URM trying to get benefits without working for it. Instead they should have shown an activity in which all were participating and had a common goal of societal achievement. MCPS please pay attention to my free advice. 3) It looked like a black grownup with two kids, (dad with children - one looks like a toddler), looking at a sports game that may or maynot interest the youngest. It would have been different if the grownup was actively participating in an enrichment activity with his children. So played into the negative stereotype of disengaged parent. Here MCPS did the right thing by making all the figures alike and looking like kids in the graphic they did use. 4) Not participating, just being spectators. Again the image is one of passivity. Really? No one in MCPS and the expensive consulting company have the brains to see this? 5) The youngest child was safer watching the game from a crack in the fence before. He is liable to tumble down from the two boxes or get a concussion from a ball. Again - a bad image to use. Oh, and we will go the private route if we get impacted by the change suggested by MCPS, and plan to move to VA. I hope more citizens will do the same. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
| The MCPS folks, who tweet that graphic constantly, always get their nose out of joint when I point out to them that the Kid in the wheelchair is not even in the picture. Shows how kids with disabilities aren't even on the MCPS radar when it comes to equity and meeting individual needs. |
Anonymous
You're right, the kid in the wheelchair should be in the picture. |
Anonymous
And so should the female child and the LGBT child. |
Anonymous
It's interesting that you assume that the little sketch people are male and straight. Why do you assume that? |
Anonymous
| This picture was not used by MCPS as noted by the original poster but I think some parts of this thread have been deleted. |
Anonymous
| No Asian kids? |
Anonymous
| Male because of their hair cuts and clothing color/style. |
Anonymous
You don't say. |
Anonymous
yes, there is. The one on the far right that needs 2 booster boxes. This picture is saying that Asian students are terribly under represented in baseball fields (and maybe in other sports as well). There must be something wrong with the recruiting criteria. It's time for change! |
Anonymous
|
A very timely piece is in today's NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/upshot/why-talented-black-and-hispanic-students-can-go-undiscovered.html?_r=1 "In 2005, in an effort to reduce that disparity, Broward County introduced a universal screening program, requiring that all second graders take a short nonverbal test, with high scorers referred for I.Q. testing. Under the previous system, the district had relied on teachers and parents to make those referrals. The economists David Card of the University of California, Berkeley, and Laura Giuliano of the University of Miami studied the effects of this policy shift. The results were striking. The share of Hispanic children identified as gifted tripled, to 6 percent from 2 percent. The share of black children rose to 3 percent from 1 percent. For whites, the gain was more muted, to 8 percent from 6 percent. Why did the new screening system find so many more gifted children, especially among blacks and Hispanics? It did not rely on teachers and parents to winnow students. The researchers found that teachers and parents were less likely to refer high-ability blacks and Hispanics, as well as children learning English as a second language, for I.Q. testing. The universal test leveled the playing field. Multiple factors could be at work here: Teachers may have lower expectations for these children, and their parents may be unfamiliar with the process and the programs. Whatever the reason, the evidence indicates that relying on teachers and parents increases racial and ethnic disparities." |
Anonymous
It's because Asian kids tend to be shorter and not as athletic (yes, I know there are outliers). I know I am and always was. Like I said, no one mentioned lowering the hurdle bar for me during PE. |