Anonymous wrote:It wouldn't be that hard to construct a fairer, more objective process than this holistic mess. For example, choose 3-5 testing instruments that are reliable and weight those. And let the parents know the weightings. That would allow for a kid to have a bad day and still get in. If you must have a subjective component, use the students' first grade report cards, which reflect the teacher's viewpoint of the student's performance but at least over a longer period of time. The work samples that the school chose just looked silly to me, so those are subject to interpretation in the eye of the beholder. Take them or leave them.
"Holistic" is just code for a black box that can't be questioned. If parents could trust the system not to shut out their kids because of a higher than normal "local norm," that would save the committee a lot of work. Leave open the possibility of an appeal, but be a little more transparent and a little more exclusive so parents don't feel their kids are doing remedial work if they stay at the base school.
You are right, it wouldn't be that hard. And the fact that they don't do better is revealing of their motives. It's intended to be as subjective as it needs to be so that they can engineer who gets in--reducing those who they think are overrepresented and increasing those that they think are underrepresented. This is exactly how it is in other spheres like higher ed where the gatekeepers want more diversity. They get rid of the objective tests and use other information. It's not a coincidence that the cover sheet has info about languages and race/ethnicity.
This is not news. The question is, can anything be done about it? I'm going to guess no unless we get more balance in the school board.