Changes to gifted center admissions

[Anonymous]

There was an update at our PTA meeting on changes to the GT center admissions. This struck me as a perfect example of a worthy social goal that would blow up due to poor execution. It also struck me as an example of how policy and institutional action -even if well meaning- incites the racial divide and pits people against each other.

The GT liaison announced that the county in response to a study that some demographics were under represented and some demographics were over represented at GT centers was changing the program. The centers will be expanded to offer more spaces and parents will not longer be able to apply. Instead teachers will be trained to identify students that should be selected. The outcome will be a more diverse population in the GT centers.

This is exactly the type of thing that will send white and asian voters over to a lunatic like Trump. It is a problem that african american and hispanic students are under represented at GT centers. The answer isn't to remove an admissions process based on merit and performance with internal selection based on meeting county demographic goals.

The county could have chosen to expand the admissions process to include both parent applications and teacher nominations. This would address minority students whose parents do not respond or understand enough to fill out the application. The admissions for the combined pool should still be based on merit and testing.

If not enough minority students score high enough to compete with the asian students then the county could put in place programs to balance the opportunity gap through after school programs. Many students are achieving not because of a high IQ but because of cultural focus on academics which includes high quality tutoring and study after school. Give the minority students this same tutoring that their own parents can not afford or are unable to provide and you will get more minority students scoring high enough to get in.

I'm a firm believer that education is about equal opportunity and education is the best way to push social progressive improvements. It needs to be executed in a manner though that is not zero sum, pitting groups against each other or throwing our merit as measurement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There was an update at our PTA meeting on changes to the GT center admissions. This struck me as a perfect example of a worthy social goal that would blow up due to poor execution. It also struck me as an example of how policy and institutional action -even if well meaning- incites the racial divide and pits people against each other.

The GT liaison announced that the county in response to a study that some demographics were under represented and some demographics were over represented at GT centers was changing the program. The centers will be expanded to offer more spaces and parents will not longer be able to apply. Instead teachers will be trained to identify students that should be selected. The outcome will be a more diverse population in the GT centers.

This is exactly the type of thing that will send white and asian voters over to a lunatic like Trump. It is a problem that african american and hispanic students are under represented at GT centers. The answer isn't to remove an admissions process based on merit and performance with internal selection based on meeting county demographic goals.

The county could have chosen to expand the admissions process to include both parent applications and teacher nominations. This would address minority students whose parents do not respond or understand enough to fill out the application. The admissions for the combined pool should still be based on merit and testing.

If not enough minority students score high enough to compete with the asian students then the county could put in place programs to balance the opportunity gap through after school programs. Many students are achieving not because of a high IQ but because of cultural focus on academics which includes high quality tutoring and study after school. Give the minority students this same tutoring that their own parents can not afford or are unable to provide and you will get more minority students scoring high enough to get in.

I'm a firm believer that education is about equal opportunity and education is the best way to push social progressive improvements. It needs to be executed in a manner though that is not zero sum, pitting groups against each other or throwing our merit as measurement.

Unless you think that parents know their kids' academic qualifications better than a teacher, I don't see anything here that suggests that selection won't be based on merit. The problem is that more educated/affluent families (who tend to be white and Asian) self-refer their slightly-above-average children, while the children of less educated/affluent/non-English speaking parents don't get referred, no matter how gifted they are. That tends to leave them out and under-represented.

If teachers are doing the selection, all children will be chosen based on their merits, not on the education/advocacy skills of their parents.

[Anonymous]

I disagree with this, but for a different reason than you. Early elementary teachers are disproportionately young, middle class, white women.

Black boys are already disproportionately singled out for disciplinary infractions, and now they want parents to trust that these young women are going to be "trained" to spot giftedness in minority and low-income kids? I'm not buying it.

[Anonymous]

I'd rather not rely on a teacher who may or may not be objective. Sure the vast majority may be great and fair, but god forbid your kid's 3rd grade teacher isn't.

Even if parents may not be qualified or even horribly biased, it doesn't matter because the test itself is an objective measure.

[Anonymous]

I thought parents could ALSO recommend their kids for testing, in addition to the teachers making recommendations.

[Anonymous]

I'd rather an objective test was used to measure one's qualifications consistently than teachers opinions since their views vary and are often subjective.

consistent criteria > subjective criteria applied inconsistently

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd rather not rely on a teacher who may or may not be objective. Sure the vast majority may be great and fair, but god forbid your kid's 3rd grade teacher isn't.

Even if parents may not be qualified or even horribly biased, it doesn't matter because the test itself is an objective measure.

In what ways would a teacher not be objective? Typically, they are not related to the kids in their classes and if they were, the principal could easily set up a situation so that the teacher would not be evaluating his or her own relative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought parents could ALSO recommend their kids for testing, in addition to the teachers making recommendations.

The post above doesn't say that, but states,
"The centers will be expanded to offer more spaces and parents will not longer be able to apply. Instead teachers will be trained to identify students that should be selected"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought parents could ALSO recommend their kids for testing, in addition to the teachers making recommendations.

The post above doesn't say that, but states,
"The centers will be expanded to offer more spaces and parents will not longer be able to apply. Instead teachers will be trained to identify students that should be selected"

Right but I've heard over and over again that parents will still be able to nominate their kids. Curious why this poster is hearing something different

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd rather not rely on a teacher who may or may not be objective. Sure the vast majority may be great and fair, but god forbid your kid's 3rd grade teacher isn't.

Even if parents may not be qualified or even horribly biased, it doesn't matter because the test itself is an objective measure.

In what ways would a teacher not be objective? Typically, they are not related to the kids in their classes and if they were, the principal could easily set up a situation so that the teacher would not be evaluating his or her own relative.

We're not talking about nepotism. We're talking about teachers that swim in the same racist soup as all of the rest of us being the sole arbiters of which kid gets referred for testing. That's a terrible way to address this issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought parents could ALSO recommend their kids for testing, in addition to the teachers making recommendations.

The post above doesn't say that, but states,
"The centers will be expanded to offer more spaces and parents will not longer be able to apply. Instead teachers will be trained to identify students that should be selected"

Right but I've heard over and over again that parents will still be able to nominate their kids. Curious why this poster is hearing something different

This particular thing has already been discussed on DCUM - but not sure who is correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd rather not rely on a teacher who may or may not be objective. Sure the vast majority may be great and fair, but god forbid your kid's 3rd grade teacher isn't.

Even if parents may not be qualified or even horribly biased, it doesn't matter because the test itself is an objective measure.

In what ways would a teacher not be objective? Typically, they are not related to the kids in their classes and if they were, the principal could easily set up a situation so that the teacher would not be evaluating his or her own relative.

Although I had many amazing wonderful teachers in my youth, there were a few who were mean spirited and unfairly biased against some kids.

If teachers were such great metrics of a kid's merit why bother pesky things like SATs?

Even a kid's GPA does not rely on the opinion of one single teacher but many.

This just seems like a terrible idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd rather not rely on a teacher who may or may not be objective. Sure the vast majority may be great and fair, but god forbid your kid's 3rd grade teacher isn't.

Even if parents may not be qualified or even horribly biased, it doesn't matter because the test itself is an objective measure.

In what ways would a teacher not be objective? Typically, they are not related to the kids in their classes and if they were, the principal could easily set up a situation so that the teacher would not be evaluating his or her own relative.

Although I had many amazing wonderful teachers in my youth, there were a few who were mean spirited and unfairly biased against some kids.

If teachers were such great metrics of a kid's merit why bother pesky things like SATs?

Even a kid's GPA does not rely on the opinion of one single teacher but many.

This just seems like a terrible idea.

teachers aren't necessarily objective but neither are parents. won't the kids still be given the actual HGC test? that should be somewhat objective

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd rather not rely on a teacher who may or may not be objective. Sure the vast majority may be great and fair, but god forbid your kid's 3rd grade teacher isn't.

Even if parents may not be qualified or even horribly biased, it doesn't matter because the test itself is an objective measure.

In what ways would a teacher not be objective? Typically, they are not related to the kids in their classes and if they were, the principal could easily set up a situation so that the teacher would not be evaluating his or her own relative.

Although I had many amazing wonderful teachers in my youth, there were a few who were mean spirited and unfairly biased against some kids.

If teachers were such great metrics of a kid's merit why bother pesky things like SATs?

Even a kid's GPA does not rely on the opinion of one single teacher but many.

This just seems like a terrible idea.

teachers aren't necessarily objective but neither are parents. won't the kids still be given the actual HGC test? that should be somewhat objective

Right, but before there was a safety mechanism. If the parents didn't refer, the teacher could. If the teacher didn't refer, the parents could. Now it sounds as if it is teacher or nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd rather an objective test was used to measure one's qualifications consistently than teachers opinions since their views vary and are often subjective.

consistent criteria > subjective criteria applied inconsistently

The problem is that standardized tests become less useful to predict which kids need a different kind of education when some of the the kids have been prepped to the teeth before the testing day. So teacher observations of how the student acts in class on a daily basis become an important part of the application process because they help to give a fuller picture of the student. Tests that take place on one or a few days plus reports of daily classroom behavior tell us more about a child's learning needs than only one or the other.