Reply to How can society measure our academic abilities?

Forum Index » Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)

Reply to "How can society measure our academic abilities? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]There is no way to measure pure aptitude that can't be "broken" through prepping.  The creator of the CogAT recommended providing prep materials to everyone so that the playing field would be leveled at least somewhat.

By the time the kids are 13-14 and applying for TJ, gifted is as gifted does.  It's absurd to use aptitude tests rather than achievement tests and actual accomplishments.  If they want to increase URM participation, the best way is to provide more services in K-8, as well as free TJ prep courses for middle schoolers.

I totally disagree with the PP who said: "I don't support the reforms but they did get one thing right. The test should measure through Algebra 1 only because that is what is taught in school and no further".  Kids who are smart can easily test into Algebra I in 7th grade using only what is taught in FCPS.  They should get a boost in TJ testing or acceptance over the kids who weren't smart enough to qualify for Algebra in 7th.  TJ testing should cover all of Algebra I Honors as well as half of Geometry I Honors, as that is the top track accessible to smart FCPS kids who aren't necessarily supplementing outside of school.  [/quote]

Why limit it to what FCPS offers by grade?  Meet the students where they are with an appropriate education, wherever that is. If the total, holistic, measure of the student, including his or her family support, willingness to study and put in work, places them beyond what FCPS has traditionally limited students to, why shouldn't they be given the opportunity to push forward elsewhere?

And if there's some reason for FCPS to *limit* what some of the best and brightest are allowed to do, in the name of equity, or some perceived subjective value judgement, they're not meeting their obligation to maximise the potential of all learners. In such case, the funding allocated for these extra-ordinary students should be given to the parents to allow them to seek out a more appropriate educational environment.

As for the psychometry of intelligence -- IQ tests. That's the closest thing we have to measuring 'g', the absolute measure of intellectual ability. Where we have an IQ/achievement mismatch we have a failure of the educational system.

Achievement, even achievement advanced for the grade level, can happen with fairly mundane intellectual ability and a lot of hard work.  These students should be lauded, but they don't really require special facilities or special teachers...they just need to be allowed to accelerate "normal" advanced curricula.

As for the profoundly gifted -- they can barely communicate with the average student without consciously slowing down. Empirically, they often have trouble relating to and building friendships with neurotypical people, and if required to engage with a classroom traveling at the speed of the 115 IQ kids...will be phenomenally bored. They WILL NOT REACH THEIR POTENTIAL.

Ultimately, we should cast a wide net with universal "gifted" testing for the ~1SD+ innate ability children for local acceleration, with increasingly expensive and intensive testing for +2SD, +3SD, as well as the handful of +4SD children in FCPS. IMO, +2SD should be the cutoff for peer-group cohorts, as they start to have trouble communicating with and relating to the average student. There are a few hundred of these students per grade, and many of them are bright and social enough that they'd prefer local schooling.  There's probably only one classroom per grade of students at +3 or 4 SD in all of FCPS, and they'd all have different levels of asynchronous development.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics