Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Why? Payton is ranked higher. It is vanity. If you ask why people go to MIT, Harvard, Yale, the answers can vary but underneath it all, is vanity. My son is vain and he chooses Payton.
I think option 2 is still better because it didn’t specify what the percentage for Tier 3/4 would be. It can be 5% or it can be 14%.
If they pick option 2, there is still a fighting chance.
I am all for equity but I think using quota is not going to help. Making test preparation accessible does.
Ok, so what do you think causes Tier 3/4 students to have higher test scores, grades, etc. than Tier 1/2 students?
This is a very interesting question and I wish I can have an answer with evidence some day. In the meantime, I speculate that there are following reasons:
1. information
Tier3/4 parents get more information related to SEHS and the necessary testing preparation. It could be the social circles the parents belong to. I didn’t know anything about academic center or SEHS until a friend with an older child explained this to me. It is just by chance that the information was delivered to me. If I don’t have such a friend, I would have had no idea until it is too late.
2. expectation.
This is related to 1 as well. When a parent’s social circle include other parents with higher expectations of their children, it is just natural to develop similar expectation. The fear of left-out is very strong.
3. tradition
Children are strongly influenced by their parents. When parents go to certain school, work in certain discipline, the children are very likely to follow. So, if Tier3/4 parents went to schools similar to SEHS, their children tend to have the strong desire to attend selective schools as well.
4. time/resource
It is possible that Tier3/4 parents are able to spend more time to supervise their children to work harder. There are more resources available to Tier 3/4 parents such as test preparation classes.
This is why I say that CPS should make it easier to get help with test preparation.
I have known extremely hardworking students who absolutely bombed that test, and I know totally lazy doing-just-enough-to-skate-by students who have aced it without putting in any effort.
I do agree that using high-stake tests alone is probably not a fair way to select students. This is why I say that the methodology needs to change. The MAP tests shouldn’t be removed because it makes it very easy to for a hardworking student to mess up the single test and then miss out the high school they want to join.
However, the reality is that there are always people who rejects the idea of more testing. CPS has decided to use a single test for the selection. It is what we have to work with.
As to students who do not seem to put into any effort still get very high grades in the test, I offer you two possible explanation: 1. the students do work hard but they don’t show because they are very efficient 2. the students are just simply geniuses. Either or both could be true. I don’t think a student who is not a genius and can ace a test without studying.
Does this sound like a quick, easy process? Questions have to be written (and aligned to standards!), pilot tests have to be run, there are a bunch of totally over-my-head algorithms and data analysis happening, completely unanticipated instances of bias are being flagged, etc. Meanwhile, as you said, it’s “lazy” to enforce a quota. Because it’s simple, straightforward, quick, and easy.
I messed up what I was trying to say. By simple, I meant that changing the testing methodology and content is simple for the parents. They only need to know one thing — the score. Making tiers is simple for CPS but not simple for the parents, who have to deal with the reality where their children may not get to the schools they want to join even with very competitive score. This year, Payton rejected many Tier 4 kids with 900 points. Where is the fairness in that? The tiebreakers require the students who enter to have perfect component scores. What if that is not enough next year when the new CPS CEO enacts the new system where each Tier gets 25% of the seats? If that is the case, what tier breakers will CPS use then?
Well. It does help in getting some students into very prestigious universities. SEHS developed a reputation where top students in there excel in those universities and they rarely turn out duds. I am not saying this is fair but it is the reality we are living with.
“Do you have any proof or evidence to support this presumption? Having spent a decade teaching in Chicago schools, I feel pretty confident in saying that there is absolutely not a standard curriculum across all elementary schools.”
https://www.cps.edu/academics/educational-standards/
This is link to CPS standard. In the past, students have to pass MAP tests, which are standardized tests to evaluate student performance. So, there was at least some target to shoot for. There is no evidence that there is systematic imbalance across CPS students based on income level of the student parents.
For example, I live in Tier 4 area but my neighborhood elementary school is rated 2/10. I don’t think it is a bad school — just lowly rated because of the statistics of student achievement. There is absolutely no correlation between the rating of elementary school and the Tier of the school zone. Most highly related elementary schools are either SEES or lottery schools. Lottery is completely equitable. So no one gets any benefit.
I also disagree that SEES introduces broad-based biases from the start. The portion of students go to SEES is very small compared to the overall student population applying SEHS. This is not sufficient a reason to make SEHS more biased than before.
“Do you have proof that there is no average quality/rating difference between schools with a high proportion of low income students and those with few low income students? Because it sounds to me like you’re suggesting that schools with a majority of low income students are just as highly rated as those with very few low income students, and if so, I’d like to see evidence to back that assertion up.”
I don’t have proof right now but I got the necessary data to crunch some numbers. I can overlay the boundaries of Tiers with the assigned elementary schools () and see whether there is any correlation between school ratings and Tiers. But like I said before, high-rated schools are mostly SEES or lottery-based. So, Tier plays little role in this.
“Changing the testing methodology seems like the better approach to me, but I’m certain it would not actually be easier. Quotas are easy. Working to reduce test bias is a long, complicated, iterative process.”
I can’t disagree more. Changing testing methodology and content is easy to do because the tests are generated from a test bank with a number of adjustable parameters. It is also the right thing to do to ensure a fair system to all students regardless their socioeconomic background. It is also very lazy to simply enforce quota. It shows a blatant disregard to the spirit of fairness of competition. CPS could have invested in free access to test preparation materials and tutoring to help students understand how the entrance exams are designed and how to properly prepare for the exam.
“Who is part of the “the same group of students” referred to here? What characteristics do the members of this group share? Would you say that the majority of them are and will always be Tier 3/4 students? If so, why? Is there something innate to Tier 3/4 students that makes them a part of this group, or is it perhaps some external factor that advantages them over others?”
The same group of students who do well in the SEHS exams are hardworking students with good study habits and lofty goals set for themselves. They don’t have to have the same demographic traits. Correlation is not causation. Just because Tier3/4 students have higher grades, it does not mean that their economic condition causes higher grades. There will always be some achievement gaps between areas. Instead of beating down those who do well, we should lift up those who do not.
SEES test is a different matter. Testing 5 year old to determine which school they should enroll is ludicrous IMHO.
It is basically to find out which 5 year old have an attention span longer than the test period.
SEHS tests are fair to all students because they test knowledge the students learn in school, which I presume is the same. Tier 3/4 students don’t necessarily go to better schools than Tier 1/2 students. How do they enjoy any advantage is beyond me.
Even if we accept the premise that the tests are not fair, shouldn’t we change the tests instead of setting quotas? My guess is that the test is not the problem because if it is, then changing the testing methodology and testing content is the easiest approach to take.
We all know, deep down in our heart, that the tests, though flawed, don’t systematically favor any group of students. In fact, no matter how we change the test, the same group of students will always do well.
I heard this argument before that Math/English tests favor students of certain demographics. This argument is made as if it were the truth but where is the proof?
I don’t think Tier1/2 students admitted with lower scores will do as well as others. By your reasoning, if a Tier1/2 student will do just as well in SEHS, then why not a Tier3/4 student with the same or higher test score? Tests are filters to select students with certain type of habits and goals. Not everyone should go to SEHS. Not everyone should go to Ivy League. Not everyone should study engineering or natural sciences. Not everyone are MDs or lawyers. Society needs all kinds of people. SEHS is not a concept that should fit all people. Some unprepared students will find SEHS highly stressful, which is detrimental to their development.
It is wrong to assume that Tier3/4 student will have someone sit besides them to tutor them or have some test prep. That is a generalization not based on facts. Instead of providing free access to test preparation and make the methodology of selecting test content available to the parents, CPS uses the Tier system to teach students that it is not hard work that counts but where they live.
It is just words without any substance.
The current system already favors tier1/2 students by putting enforced quota that is only available to them.
The most equitable system is to abolish selective enrollment and invest in neighborhood school. I would love that to happen. The reality is that Chicago spends tons of more money in SEHS while neglecting the majority. To appease voters, Chicago politician uses this factious criterion of equity to diminish the chances of smarter students. What is the point of admitting non-qualified students to a tough environment that they are not prepared for? It is not good for the students, nor for the school. It goes against the intent of SEHS, which is to allow more prepared students to have higher achievement than they can in neighborhood schools.
There are some many issues CPS need to address but the first grand thing this new CEO does is to make the selection system more discriminatory to Tier3/4 students. This the identity politics to the worst.
Thank you. This is very helpful information. I also hope they release the component scores already instead of just the percentile of ELA and math.
Will there be a tiebreaker nightmare?
If there are numerous perfect scores, then Payton/Northside will reject many Tier3/4 kids with perfect scores. It would be such a let down.
I am also confused by how it works. In principle, a student can be wait-listed in any of the schools that the student has applied but not offered a seat in the schools ranked higher than the school to which the student has been offered a seat.
If the student accepts a seat, then he/she take themselves out of the waitlists the student is in before the student finds out whether the waitlist has any openings. So practically speaking, yes, the student has to reject the seat that is offered to have a shot at the waitlist.
This year I expect massive confusion since there will be a lot of tie-breaks so that many students that match the cut-off might not be offered seats.
