Anonymous
06/01/2016 07:29
Subject: The Choice Study report recommendation 3a
Anonymous wrote:I am so glad that the pp posted this paper. If this is the basis for rec 3a, then there is nothing in that paper to lean on.
+1
Anonymous
05/31/2016 21:46
Subject: The Choice Study report recommendation 3a
I am so glad that the pp posted this paper. If this is the basis for rec 3a, then there is nothing in that paper to lean on.
Anonymous
05/31/2016 21:43
Subject: The Choice Study report recommendation 3a
Anonymous wrote:The authors spent a lot of words reviewed other literature but I cannot appreciate this study. Put it in a layman's words, if you set different standard for each group you can identify the same number of gifted students in each group. The hypothesis is that each group has the same propotion of gifted student. To demonstrate that they just lowed the test score . Where is the evidence that the students with the low test score ARE gifted? Did they achieved same acadamic success in high school or college? Or did they kept their giftness by receiving the gf education?
Exactly? you can manipulate the standard to get whatever racial composition you want. But where is the evidence that this is a sound approach for gifted identification? Just because some one coined a term called group specific norm doesnt make it a scientific concept.
Anonymous
05/31/2016 20:54
Subject: The Choice Study report recommendation 3a
The authors spent a lot of words reviewed other literature but I cannot appreciate this study. Put it in a layman's words, if you set different standard for each group you can identify the same number of gifted students in each group. The hypothesis is that each group has the same propotion of gifted student. To demonstrate that they just lowed the test score . Where is the evidence that the students with the low test score ARE gifted? Did they achieved same acadamic success in high school or college? Or did they kept their giftness by receiving the gf education?
Anonymous
05/31/2016 10:54
Subject: The Choice Study report recommendation 3a
The paper notes that qualified low income kids tend to loose ground compared to their higher income peers..but I am guessing that almost all lower income kids lose ground compared to their peers as the effects of home life continue to influence their education.
Anonymous
05/31/2016 10:44
Subject: The Choice Study report recommendation 3a
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Oh gosh here we go again!
Yep.
The report says this:
...focus these programs on selecting equitably from among those applicants that demonstrate a capacity to thrive in the program, that include use of non-cognitive criteria, group-specific norms that benchmark student performance against school peers with comparable backgrounds...
They cite a papere:
Peters, Scott, J. & Gentry, Marcia (2012). Group-Specific Norms and Teacher-Rating Scales: Implications for
Underrepresentation. Journal of Advanced Academics 23(2), 125-144.
http://geri.education.purdue.edu/PDF%20Files/GENTRY/PetersGentry12.pdf
Rather than rebooting the conversation and making assumptions, why not discuss the paper? At least that's a concrete starting point and better than jumping to conclusions about what MCPS may or may not propose based on this one sub-recomendation.
This paper is ridiculous. It shows that if you lower the standard for the underrepresented group, they are more likely to be identified as gifted. Just because it is dressed up in a What is the goal here? You either want to identify the kids who are gifted and needs an appropriate education at their level, or you just want to be able to say the gifted program has a racial composition that is proportional to the student population? I don't think proportional representation should be a goal in itself. Nurture the gifted minority kids early so that they can be be equally prepared for the magnet tests. But don't lower the standard for the program--that helps no one.
Well the authors also state:
"However, placing both groups of students, those
who meet the general group and those who meet the group-specific norms, in a typical
gifted program is unlikely to provide the services needed for many students. Instead,
multiple levels of service must be applied to allow for all students to grow and develop
within the various content areas."
Therefore, the authors would agree that this method would identify more students but the quote above implies that lowering the standards and putting both groups in the same classroom would not benefit either group. What would their solution look like in MCPS--multiple levels of service?
The author also dose not recommend replacing the qualified kids with the lower income kids but expanding the program to include more lower income kids. As it is set up right now, the local schools that house the magnet program already have the opportunity to send more kids to participate in the magnet program, at least in some activities. So in some ways, only looking at the magnet program itself for racial composition is a bit misleading.
MCPS ought to think about having local gifted programming in every school, at least at the elementary school level. Every child who desires more challenge, should be challenged with a rigorous curriculum.
Anonymous
05/31/2016 10:19
Subject: The Choice Study report recommendation 3a
Anonymous wrote:Recommends to use group-specific norms to bring more URM students into the HGC and magnet programs. Does 'group-specific norms' mean racial quota? Or is it social-economic based?
According to the cited paper, group-specific norms are based on socio-economic status, i.e., low-income students. Although race is generally correlated with income in most of the US, the clear goal of capturing students using group-specific norms is having a higher percentage of low-income students in these programs. In MCPS that would be correlated with blacks/hispanics, in Appalachia whites. Therefore, this method of identifying students would not benefit middle-class minority students because the cut-off scores would not be grouped by race.
Anonymous
05/31/2016 10:07
Subject: The Choice Study report recommendation 3a
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Oh gosh here we go again!
Yep.
The report says this:
...focus these programs on selecting equitably from among those applicants that demonstrate a capacity to thrive in the program, that include use of non-cognitive criteria, group-specific norms that benchmark student performance against school peers with comparable backgrounds...
They cite a papere:
Peters, Scott, J. & Gentry, Marcia (2012). Group-Specific Norms and Teacher-Rating Scales: Implications for
Underrepresentation. Journal of Advanced Academics 23(2), 125-144.
http://geri.education.purdue.edu/PDF%20Files/GENTRY/PetersGentry12.pdf
Rather than rebooting the conversation and making assumptions, why not discuss the paper? At least that's a concrete starting point and better than jumping to conclusions about what MCPS may or may not propose based on this one sub-recomendation.
This paper is ridiculous. It shows that if you lower the standard for the underrepresented group, they are more likely to be identified as gifted. Just because it is dressed up in a What is the goal here? You either want to identify the kids who are gifted and needs an appropriate education at their level, or you just want to be able to say the gifted program has a racial composition that is proportional to the student population? I don't think proportional representation should be a goal in itself. Nurture the gifted minority kids early so that they can be be equally prepared for the magnet tests. But don't lower the standard for the program--that helps no one.
Well the authors also state:
"However, placing both groups of students, those
who meet the general group and those who meet the group-specific norms, in a typical
gifted program is unlikely to provide the services needed for many students. Instead,
multiple levels of service must be applied to allow for all students to grow and develop
within the various content areas."
Therefore, the authors would agree that this method would identify more students but the quote above implies that lowering the standards and putting both groups in the same classroom would not benefit either group. What would their solution look like in MCPS--multiple levels of service?
Anonymous
05/31/2016 10:02
Subject: The Choice Study report recommendation 3a
Sorry, I meant just because it is dressed up as an academic paper, doesn't make it research.
Anonymous
05/31/2016 10:01
Subject: The Choice Study report recommendation 3a
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Oh gosh here we go again!
Yep.
The report says this:
...focus these programs on selecting equitably from among those applicants that demonstrate a capacity to thrive in the program, that include use of non-cognitive criteria, group-specific norms that benchmark student performance against school peers with comparable backgrounds...
They cite a papere:
Peters, Scott, J. & Gentry, Marcia (2012). Group-Specific Norms and Teacher-Rating Scales: Implications for
Underrepresentation. Journal of Advanced Academics 23(2), 125-144.
http://geri.education.purdue.edu/PDF%20Files/GENTRY/PetersGentry12.pdf
Rather than rebooting the conversation and making assumptions, why not discuss the paper? At least that's a concrete starting point and better than jumping to conclusions about what MCPS may or may not propose based on this one sub-recomendation.
This paper is ridiculous. It shows that if you lower the standard for the underrepresented group, they are more likely to be identified as gifted. Just because it is dressed up in a What is the goal here? You either want to identify the kids who are gifted and needs an appropriate education at their level, or you just want to be able to say the gifted program has a racial composition that is proportional to the student population? I don't think proportional representation should be a goal in itself. Nurture the gifted minority kids early so that they can be be equally prepared for the magnet tests. But don't lower the standard for the program--that helps no one.
Anonymous
05/31/2016 08:23
Subject: The Choice Study report recommendation 3a
Anonymous wrote:Oh gosh here we go again!
Yep.
The report says this:
...focus these programs on selecting equitably from among those applicants that demonstrate a capacity to thrive in the program, that include use of non-cognitive criteria, group-specific norms that benchmark student performance against school peers with comparable backgrounds...
They cite a papere:
Peters, Scott, J. & Gentry, Marcia (2012). Group-Specific Norms and Teacher-Rating Scales: Implications for
Underrepresentation. Journal of Advanced Academics 23(2), 125-144.
http://geri.education.purdue.edu/PDF%20Files/GENTRY/PetersGentry12.pdf
Rather than rebooting the conversation and making assumptions, why not discuss the paper? At least that's a concrete starting point and better than jumping to conclusions about what MCPS may or may not propose based on this one sub-recomendation.
Anonymous
05/31/2016 06:58
Subject: The Choice Study report recommendation 3a
They must not be familiar with the massive lawsuit MCPS already dealt with on this issue. Eisenberg. Ruled that race could not be a criteria.
Anonymous
05/30/2016 23:59
Subject: The Choice Study report recommendation 3a
Oh gosh here we go again!
Anonymous
05/30/2016 23:43
Subject: The Choice Study report recommendation 3a
It means exactly that.
Anonymous
05/30/2016 22:55
Subject: The Choice Study report recommendation 3a
Recommends to use group-specific norms to bring more URM students into the HGC and magnet programs. Does 'group-specific norms' mean racial quota? Or is it social-economic based?