Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't we pick athletic teams with equity in mind? Make sure Asians are represented on basketball teams? Laughable, right?

Something wrong with Yuta Watanabe, Yao Ming, Zhizhi Wang, Zhou Qi????

Good enough for the NBA but not good enough for you???

Anonymous wrote:Why don't we pick athletic teams with equity in mind? Make sure Asians are represented on basketball teams? Laughable, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what's laughable is that you assume athletics and academics should be judged similarly.

That old chestnut again; it never made much sense. I'm also fine with eliminating these types of sports from public education. I prefer they apply public funds to benefit all students.

Anonymous wrote:why people still care about CES? It's just a lottery...

Anonymous wrote:what's laughable is that you assume athletics and academics should be judged similarly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lottery is not an appropriate way to select students for an academic enrichment program. There are a lot of heated discussions going on behind the scenes but Central Office is holding firm for now. I only wish there were some lawsuits to push them off sooner. Their policy discriminates against students who score highest on reputable and widely-accepted measures of achievement and goes against decades of research on how best to educate advanced learners.

To OP and others whose kids didn't score quite as high as they hoped, monitor what your children read - if they don't read texts that challenge them a little bit, their scores won't increase much. It's not the quantity, but the quality of reading that matters.

There's more to kids' abilities than just that which testing shows. Any specific tool for measurement will artificially cut out some kids. How is that more fair?

Don't start that again, just like all the Central Office people who gave that as pretext to blather about "equity" when really in the back of their minds they have a vision of a practically all-Asian magnet school, and that's what really scares them because a lot of them are closet racists.

Academic scores to select who gets into an academically enriched program is DUH kind of obvious, and the LEAST worse way to pick students. We all agree that some intelligent students will be left out. This is the way to leave as few as possible out, because even disadvantaged students, or students who are primarily gifted in other ways than academics, will tend to have high Cogat scores if their critical thinking is highly developed.

You get to play the cyclops in The Odyssey with such a limited view of school!

The problem with their myopic view is they define merit rigidly without looking at what's been going on and how these metrics are easily gamed by anyone wiling to spend a few thousand dollars on outside enrichment. Now, I'm all for outside enrichment but let's not pretend it makes you more worthy for a publicly funded program. I don't know if there any perfect solutions but if it were up to me I'd probably double the spots and do a lottery of the top 5%-10% to ensure anyone who could do the work can participate. This false scarcity hunger games approach that appeals may appeal to some as a status symbol but it really isn't working.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lottery is not an appropriate way to select students for an academic enrichment program. There are a lot of heated discussions going on behind the scenes but Central Office is holding firm for now. I only wish there were some lawsuits to push them off sooner. Their policy discriminates against students who score highest on reputable and widely-accepted measures of achievement and goes against decades of research on how best to educate advanced learners.

To OP and others whose kids didn't score quite as high as they hoped, monitor what your children read - if they don't read texts that challenge them a little bit, their scores won't increase much. It's not the quantity, but the quality of reading that matters.

There's more to kids' abilities than just that which testing shows. Any specific tool for measurement will artificially cut out some kids. How is that more fair?

Don't start that again, just like all the Central Office people who gave that as pretext to blather about "equity" when really in the back of their minds they have a vision of a practically all-Asian magnet school, and that's what really scares them because a lot of them are closet racists.

Academic scores to select who gets into an academically enriched program is DUH kind of obvious, and the LEAST worse way to pick students. We all agree that some intelligent students will be left out. This is the way to leave as few as possible out, because even disadvantaged students, or students who are primarily gifted in other ways than academics, will tend to have high Cogat scores if their critical thinking is highly developed.

You get to play the cyclops in The Odyssey with such a limited view of school!

The problem with their myopic view is they define merit rigidly without looking at what's been going on and how these metrics are easily gamed by anyone wiling to spend a few thousand dollars on outside enrichment. Now, I'm all for outside enrichment but let's not pretend it makes you more worthy for a publicly funded program. I don't know if there any perfect solutions but if it were up to me I'd probably double the spots and do a lottery of the top 5%-10% to ensure anyone who could do the work can participate. This false scarcity hunger games approach that appeals may appeal to some as a status symbol but it really isn't working.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What was their usual percentage and what is it now?

Fwiw my former CES kid now in 8th grade reported a low MAP score than usual.

Percentile hovers around low 90s (89-94), assuming its around 90 or so again. But I assumed kids in CES had higher scores.. so just wondering what it was like pre lottery?

I can't tell if you are a troll trying to stir up drama or genuinely curious.

Your child made the cut-off for the lottery and then got lucky to have their number come up. Congratulations. I hope she's happy and making the most of the opportunity.

Whatever the numbers were pre-lottery is immaterial because that's not the system we have today, and inviting folks to complain about how their child got a 280 in 3rd grade but not a lucky lottery number is not going to help discourse on this board.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lottery is not an appropriate way to select students for an academic enrichment program. There are a lot of heated discussions going on behind the scenes but Central Office is holding firm for now. I only wish there were some lawsuits to push them off sooner. Their policy discriminates against students who score highest on reputable and widely-accepted measures of achievement and goes against decades of research on how best to educate advanced learners.

To OP and others whose kids didn't score quite as high as they hoped, monitor what your children read - if they don't read texts that challenge them a little bit, their scores won't increase much. It's not the quantity, but the quality of reading that matters.

There's more to kids' abilities than just that which testing shows. Any specific tool for measurement will artificially cut out some kids. How is that more fair?

Don't start that again, just like all the Central Office people who gave that as pretext to blather about "equity" when really in the back of their minds they have a vision of a practically all-Asian magnet school, and that's what really scares them because a lot of them are closet racists.

Academic scores to select who gets into an academically enriched program is DUH kind of obvious, and the LEAST worse way to pick students. We all agree that some intelligent students will be left out. This is the way to leave as few as possible out, because even disadvantaged students, or students who are primarily gifted in other ways than academics, will tend to have high Cogat scores if their critical thinking is highly developed.

You get to play the cyclops in The Odyssey with such a limited view of school!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lottery is not an appropriate way to select students for an academic enrichment program. There are a lot of heated discussions going on behind the scenes but Central Office is holding firm for now. I only wish there were some lawsuits to push them off sooner. Their policy discriminates against students who score highest on reputable and widely-accepted measures of achievement and goes against decades of research on how best to educate advanced learners.

To OP and others whose kids didn't score quite as high as they hoped, monitor what your children read - if they don't read texts that challenge them a little bit, their scores won't increase much. It's not the quantity, but the quality of reading that matters.

There's more to kids' abilities than just that which testing shows. Any specific tool for measurement will artificially cut out some kids. How is that more fair?

Don't start that again, just like all the Central Office people who gave that as pretext to blather about "equity" when really in the back of their minds they have a vision of a practically all-Asian magnet school, and that's what really scares them because a lot of them are closet racists.

Academic scores to select who gets into an academically enriched program is DUH kind of obvious, and the LEAST worse way to pick students. We all agree that some intelligent students will be left out. This is the way to leave as few as possible out, because even disadvantaged students, or students who are primarily gifted in other ways than academics, will tend to have high Cogat scores if their critical thinking is highly developed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lottery is not an appropriate way to select students for an academic enrichment program. There are a lot of heated discussions going on behind the scenes but Central Office is holding firm for now. I only wish there were some lawsuits to push them off sooner. Their policy discriminates against students who score highest on reputable and widely-accepted measures of achievement and goes against decades of research on how best to educate advanced learners.

To OP and others whose kids didn't score quite as high as they hoped, monitor what your children read - if they don't read texts that challenge them a little bit, their scores won't increase much. It's not the quantity, but the quality of reading that matters.

There's more to kids' abilities than just that which testing shows. Any specific tool for measurement will artificially cut out some kids. How is that more fair?