Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes. The bolded indicated that every kid was given the test, and the ones who scored very high were then referred to IQ testing. It indicates that identifying a kid as gifted was solely reliant on test results.

The HGC test is to identify those that are "gifted" for entry into the program. So, just as they did, don't rely on parental or teacher input. Have every kid take the test, and admit purely by test scores.

That won't go over very well.

No, the HGC application is to identify those who are "highly gifted" (whatever that means, and everybody has a different idea) for entry into the program. The whole application. Not just the test results.

The PP posted the article indicating that more URM kids were identified as gifted simply by having all kids take the test, and devoid of any parental or teacher input. So, I am saying let's do the same thing here: have all kids take the HGC test. That alone should determine who gets in. You can decline if you don't want to go, but like the other case, that one test alone should identify who is gifted, and thereby, who gets in.

It would also help the home school teacher know which kids need more acceleration based on the test scores.

In theory it sounds good the problem is too many parents are gaming the test system. As discussed, their are a group of Asians having intense test prep prior to the HGC exam. I think bringing back the Raven IQ in second grade would be best and do not tell the parents in advance when the test is given to limit the prep people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes. The bolded indicated that every kid was given the test, and the ones who scored very high were then referred to IQ testing. It indicates that identifying a kid as gifted was solely reliant on test results.

The HGC test is to identify those that are "gifted" for entry into the program. So, just as they did, don't rely on parental or teacher input. Have every kid take the test, and admit purely by test scores.

That won't go over very well.

No, the HGC application is to identify those who are "highly gifted" (whatever that means, and everybody has a different idea) for entry into the program. The whole application. Not just the test results.

The PP posted the article indicating that more URM kids were identified as gifted simply by having all kids take the test, and devoid of any parental or teacher input. So, I am saying let's do the same thing here: have all kids take the HGC test. That alone should determine who gets in. You can decline if you don't want to go, but like the other case, that one test alone should identify who is gifted, and thereby, who gets in.

It would also help the home school teacher know which kids need more acceleration based on the test scores.

Anonymous wrote:

No, Inview doesn't test achievement. It tests cognitive abilities. Otherwise, they wouldn't use it to identify gifted children in 2nd grade.

http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/tests.htm

InView grades 2-12 (only 6 levels available, each covering 2 grades)
Group cognitive abilities test, "comprised of five subtests: Verbal Reasoning-Words; Verbal Reasoning-Context; Sequences; Analogies; and Quantitative Reasoning. InView does not measure all aspects of cognitive abilities. Since it is intended for use in schools, emphasis is placed on reasoning abilities that are important for success in an educational program." Elementary level InView is said to have hard ceiling of 141, where gifted is 127+.

Anonymous wrote:A very timely piece is in today's NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/upshot/why-talented-black-and-hispanic-students-can-go-undiscovered.html?_r=1

"In 2005, in an effort to reduce that disparity, Broward County introduced a universal screening program, requiring that all second graders take a short nonverbal test, with high scorers referred for I.Q. testing. Under the previous system, the district had relied on teachers and parents to make those referrals.

The economists David Card of the University of California, Berkeley, and Laura Giuliano of the University of Miami studied the effects of this policy shift. The results were striking.

The share of Hispanic children identified as gifted tripled, to 6 percent from 2 percent. The share of black children rose to 3 percent from 1 percent. For whites, the gain was more muted, to 8 percent from 6 percent.
Why did the new screening system find so many more gifted children, especially among blacks and Hispanics? It did not rely on teachers and parents to winnow students. The researchers found that teachers and parents were less likely to refer high-ability blacks and Hispanics, as well as children learning English as a second language, for I.Q. testing. The universal test leveled the playing field.

Multiple factors could be at work here: Teachers may have lower expectations for these children, and their parents may be unfamiliar with the process and the programs. Whatever the reason, the evidence indicates that relying on teachers and parents increases racial and ethnic disparities."

Anonymous wrote:

The PP posted the article indicating that more URM kids were identified as gifted simply by having all kids take the test, and devoid of any parental or teacher input. So, I am saying let's do the same thing here: have all kids take the HGC test. That alone should determine who gets in. You can decline if you don't want to go, but like the other case, that one test alone should identify who is gifted, and thereby, who gets in.

It would also help the home school teacher know which kids need more acceleration based on the test scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A very timely piece is in today's NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/upshot/why-talented-black-and-hispanic-students-can-go-undiscovered.html?_r=1

"In 2005, in an effort to reduce that disparity, Broward County introduced a universal screening program, requiring that all second graders take a short nonverbal test, with high scorers referred for I.Q. testing. Under the previous system, the district had relied on teachers and parents to make those referrals.

The economists David Card of the University of California, Berkeley, and Laura Giuliano of the University of Miami studied the effects of this policy shift. The results were striking.

The share of Hispanic children identified as gifted tripled, to 6 percent from 2 percent. The share of black children rose to 3 percent from 1 percent. For whites, the gain was more muted, to 8 percent from 6 percent.
Why did the new screening system find so many more gifted children, especially among blacks and Hispanics? It did not rely on teachers and parents to winnow students. The researchers found that teachers and parents were less likely to refer high-ability blacks and Hispanics, as well as children learning English as a second language, for I.Q. testing. The universal test leveled the playing field.

Multiple factors could be at work here: Teachers may have lower expectations for these children, and their parents may be unfamiliar with the process and the programs. Whatever the reason, the evidence indicates that relying on teachers and parents increases racial and ethnic disparities."

Then let's just go strictly by test results. That should go over well.

MCPS does this now where all 2nd graders take Inview. Curious, are there any stats on how kids do across demographics? That should be a good indicator of how such a policy (test results only) would work out.

MCPS had given the same type test to all second graders. It's the Raven IQ test. The Raven is IQ, inview is achievement so it does not measure IQ, inview measures what child was taught and SES basically. In fact, when my DS scores very high on the Raven with MCPS in second grade I took him for a Wisc test and he was Mensa level. Prior to testing, he was blending in with the crowd not one MCPS teacher identified him as gifted prior but after I showed the test scores manically he was gifted and later attended the magnet programs. I would have never have known otherwise and I wonder what he would be doing and choices he might have taken i.e. Trying for magnets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes. The bolded indicated that every kid was given the test, and the ones who scored very high were then referred to IQ testing. It indicates that identifying a kid as gifted was solely reliant on test results.

The HGC test is to identify those that are "gifted" for entry into the program. So, just as they did, don't rely on parental or teacher input. Have every kid take the test, and admit purely by test scores.

That won't go over very well.

No, the HGC application is to identify those who are "highly gifted" (whatever that means, and everybody has a different idea) for entry into the program. The whole application. Not just the test results.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A very timely piece is in today's NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/upshot/why-talented-black-and-hispanic-students-can-go-undiscovered.html?_r=1

"In 2005, in an effort to reduce that disparity, Broward County introduced a universal screening program, requiring that all second graders take a short nonverbal test, with high scorers referred for I.Q. testing. Under the previous system, the district had relied on teachers and parents to make those referrals.

The economists David Card of the University of California, Berkeley, and Laura Giuliano of the University of Miami studied the effects of this policy shift. The results were striking.

The share of Hispanic children identified as gifted tripled, to 6 percent from 2 percent. The share of black children rose to 3 percent from 1 percent. For whites, the gain was more muted, to 8 percent from 6 percent.
Why did the new screening system find so many more gifted children, especially among blacks and Hispanics? It did not rely on teachers and parents to winnow students. The researchers found that teachers and parents were less likely to refer high-ability blacks and Hispanics, as well as children learning English as a second language, for I.Q. testing. The universal test leveled the playing field.

Multiple factors could be at work here: Teachers may have lower expectations for these children, and their parents may be unfamiliar with the process and the programs. Whatever the reason, the evidence indicates that relying on teachers and parents increases racial and ethnic disparities."

Then let's just go strictly by test results. That should go over well.

MCPS does this now where all 2nd graders take Inview. Curious, are there any stats on how kids do across demographics? That should be a good indicator of how such a policy (test results only) would work out.

Anonymous wrote:
Yes. The bolded indicated that every kid was given the test, and the ones who scored very high were then referred to IQ testing. It indicates that identifying a kid as gifted was solely reliant on test results.

The HGC test is to identify those that are "gifted" for entry into the program. So, just as they did, don't rely on parental or teacher input. Have every kid take the test, and admit purely by test scores.

That won't go over very well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A very timely piece is in today's NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/upshot/why-talented-black-and-hispanic-students-can-go-undiscovered.html?_r=1

"In 2005, in an effort to reduce that disparity, Broward County introduced a universal screening program, requiring that all second graders take a short nonverbal test, with high scorers referred for I.Q. testing. Under the previous system, the district had relied on teachers and parents to make those referrals.

The economists David Card of the University of California, Berkeley, and Laura Giuliano of the University of Miami studied the effects of this policy shift. The results were striking.

The share of Hispanic children identified as gifted tripled, to 6 percent from 2 percent. The share of black children rose to 3 percent from 1 percent. For whites, the gain was more muted, to 8 percent from 6 percent.
Why did the new screening system find so many more gifted children, especially among blacks and Hispanics? It did not rely on teachers and parents to winnow students. The researchers found that teachers and parents were less likely to refer high-ability blacks and Hispanics, as well as children learning English as a second language, for I.Q. testing. The universal test leveled the playing field.

Multiple factors could be at work here: Teachers may have lower expectations for these children, and their parents may be unfamiliar with the process and the programs. Whatever the reason, the evidence indicates that relying on teachers and parents increases racial and ethnic disparities."

Then let's just go strictly by test results. That should go over well.

MCPS does this now where all 2nd graders take Inview. Curious, are there any stats on how kids do across demographics? That should be a good indicator of how such a policy (test results only) would work out.

Where did you get that idea from? The comparable recommendation for MCPS would be to have automatic application by everybody to the HGC.

Yes. The bolded indicated that every kid was given the test, and the ones who scored very high were then referred to IQ testing. It indicates that identifying a kid as gifted was solely reliant on test results.

The HGC test is to identify those that are "gifted" for entry into the program. So, just as they did, don't rely on parental or teacher input. Have every kid take the test, and admit purely by test scores.

That won't go over very well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A very timely piece is in today's NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/upshot/why-talented-black-and-hispanic-students-can-go-undiscovered.html?_r=1

"In 2005, in an effort to reduce that disparity, Broward County introduced a universal screening program, requiring that all second graders take a short nonverbal test, with high scorers referred for I.Q. testing. Under the previous system, the district had relied on teachers and parents to make those referrals.

The economists David Card of the University of California, Berkeley, and Laura Giuliano of the University of Miami studied the effects of this policy shift. The results were striking.

The share of Hispanic children identified as gifted tripled, to 6 percent from 2 percent. The share of black children rose to 3 percent from 1 percent. For whites, the gain was more muted, to 8 percent from 6 percent.
Why did the new screening system find so many more gifted children, especially among blacks and Hispanics? It did not rely on teachers and parents to winnow students. The researchers found that teachers and parents were less likely to refer high-ability blacks and Hispanics, as well as children learning English as a second language, for I.Q. testing. The universal test leveled the playing field.

Multiple factors could be at work here: Teachers may have lower expectations for these children, and their parents may be unfamiliar with the process and the programs. Whatever the reason, the evidence indicates that relying on teachers and parents increases racial and ethnic disparities."

Then let's just go strictly by test results. That should go over well.

MCPS does this now where all 2nd graders take Inview. Curious, are there any stats on how kids do across demographics? That should be a good indicator of how such a policy (test results only) would work out.

Where did you get that idea from? The comparable recommendation for MCPS would be to have automatic application by everybody to the HGC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A very timely piece is in today's NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/upshot/why-talented-black-and-hispanic-students-can-go-undiscovered.html?_r=1

"In 2005, in an effort to reduce that disparity, Broward County introduced a universal screening program, requiring that all second graders take a short nonverbal test, with high scorers referred for I.Q. testing. Under the previous system, the district had relied on teachers and parents to make those referrals.

The economists David Card of the University of California, Berkeley, and Laura Giuliano of the University of Miami studied the effects of this policy shift. The results were striking.

The share of Hispanic children identified as gifted tripled, to 6 percent from 2 percent. The share of black children rose to 3 percent from 1 percent. For whites, the gain was more muted, to 8 percent from 6 percent.
Why did the new screening system find so many more gifted children, especially among blacks and Hispanics? It did not rely on teachers and parents to winnow students. The researchers found that teachers and parents were less likely to refer high-ability blacks and Hispanics, as well as children learning English as a second language, for I.Q. testing. The universal test leveled the playing field.

Multiple factors could be at work here: Teachers may have lower expectations for these children, and their parents may be unfamiliar with the process and the programs. Whatever the reason, the evidence indicates that relying on teachers and parents increases racial and ethnic disparities."

Then let's just go strictly by test results. That should go over well.

MCPS does this now where all 2nd graders take Inview. Curious, are there any stats on how kids do across demographics? That should be a good indicator of how such a policy (test results only) would work out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No Asian kids?

yes, there is. The one on the far right that needs 2 booster boxes.
This picture is saying that Asian students are terribly under represented in baseball fields (and maybe in other sports as well).
There must be something wrong with the recruiting criteria. It's time for change!

It's because Asian kids tend to be shorter and not as athletic (yes, I know there are outliers). I know I am and always was. Like I said, no one mentioned lowering the hurdle bar for me during PE.

Anonymous wrote:A very timely piece is in today's NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/upshot/why-talented-black-and-hispanic-students-can-go-undiscovered.html?_r=1

"In 2005, in an effort to reduce that disparity, Broward County introduced a universal screening program, requiring that all second graders take a short nonverbal test, with high scorers referred for I.Q. testing. Under the previous system, the district had relied on teachers and parents to make those referrals.

The economists David Card of the University of California, Berkeley, and Laura Giuliano of the University of Miami studied the effects of this policy shift. The results were striking.

The share of Hispanic children identified as gifted tripled, to 6 percent from 2 percent. The share of black children rose to 3 percent from 1 percent. For whites, the gain was more muted, to 8 percent from 6 percent.
Why did the new screening system find so many more gifted children, especially among blacks and Hispanics? It did not rely on teachers and parents to winnow students. The researchers found that teachers and parents were less likely to refer high-ability blacks and Hispanics, as well as children learning English as a second language, for I.Q. testing. The universal test leveled the playing field.

Multiple factors could be at work here: Teachers may have lower expectations for these children, and their parents may be unfamiliar with the process and the programs. Whatever the reason, the evidence indicates that relying on teachers and parents increases racial and ethnic disparities."