My lovely and talented wife has been an ELP / GT teacher for about 14 years and a teacher for 28 years. We have two GT sons, our eldest just graduated HS this last fall.

Going through the process of applying for scholarships, it’s not unusual, especially for the scholarships with larger sums, for there to be an interview. My wife started logging artifacts for our boys at an early age and keeping track of their activities, volunteerism, and awards, then, at toward the start of our eldest’s Jr. year, began assembling those artifacts as a combinded project with our son into a formalized portfolio.

The portfolio has been the clincher in numerous scholarships I feel. Many of those interviewing my son have told him he’s the only one, or one of only a few through the years they’ve been interviewing who presented a portfolio. Those interviewing my son have spent considerable time looking through the artifacts. You have to consider that it allows those looking at it to see development over time and what got that child to where they are at present standing before those interviewing.

I encourage each parent to start collecting artifacts for the purpose of a portfolio for future use, it’s served us well.

What a fabulous idea! Thanks for sharing John.

Thanks for sharing your experience. We would act on your suggestions if we were not so disorganized .

On a policy note, your experience confirms my belief that using "holistic" criteria for awarding scholarships and seats in selective colleges can be less fair to low-SES children than supposedly biased standardized tests. What about the children whose parents aren't as motivated and organized as you are?

SES aside, I personally am not a fan of parent homework giving a kid a leg up on a merit scholarship. I'm totally in favor of encouraging a *kid* to create their own portfolio, but I suspect the scholarship committees would not have been nearly as enthusiastic if they were aware that it was put together by a parent.

Yes, but there is no way to verify that. At least a test represents a student's own effort -- most of the time http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/02/education/on-long-island-sat-cheating-was-hardly-a-secret.html .

When my son gets homework such as doing a math worksheet or writing an essay, he does it. When it comes to "projects" such as creating a diorama of an animal in its natural habitat it is more of a family effort. His younger brother loves to draw ... . I've read that homework in middle school and high school is more project-oriented than it was say 20 years ago. Scholarships depend on grades, and grades depend on homework . How much of the homework is actually done by the student varies
across students. I don't think homework should be abolished, but its weight in grades should be limited.

what age should this portfolio start? My kids are in elementary.

You mean just remembering to write down things they did and the dates and details?

I couldn't agree more. When a large chunk of a student's grade (say 20% or more) comes from homework, its purpose can be defeated. I think of homework as being something that helps a student learn a new idea. If the homework is graded (e.g. 8/10 = 80%), it's like the kids have to be perfect or nearly so from the moment an idea is introduced in order to get an A or B in the class. IMO, classtime and homework are for learning, and tests are the time for grades that count (when I taught, I always gave the final exam the most weight).

I took a first-year history class once that required a short essay every Friday. Each essay received comments and a "grade" but the grade didn't count. It was to help the students track their progress. All that counted was that you made an honest effort and turned it in. The point was that you were supposed to learn how to write and learn how to use sources.

The drawback to having tests count for most or all of the student's grade is something I see with my 2e kid, though. When dealing with an erratic tester or a kid who misses a lot of points for silly mistakes: transferring the wrong answer to the answer line, not showing work, making calculation errors, etc., I wish that my 2e kid's homework actually did count for some of her grade b/c she knows more than her test scores show at times.

I'm a little surprised that the college recruiters the OP's son has had contact with hadn't seen portfolios from other students before - the concept of a portfolio is widely encouraged in our school district starting in 9th grade (for all students, not just in GT) and is used by students here when applying to colleges and for scholarships. The elementary school (public) that my kids attended had the kids keeping a portfolio of their best work each school year starting in kindergarten, with the students selecting what work they chose to put in it (from each subject area).

My gut feeling (and it's nothing more than that!) is that a college recruiter and/or scholarship committee isn't going to really be interested in seeing much of anything before high school.

polarbear

I see your point.

Some of those problems can be cured with better test design (e.g. long-answer tests that don't require transferring an answer to a line). And teachers should be crystal clear about the definition of "show your work." For example, I can solve a multiplication problem by writing out partial answers in chunks instead of the stepwise individual multiplication steps. I don't necessarily write every digit; that would slow me down too much. If I showed this on a test, it would be "my" work. But a teacher might argue that I've "skipped steps." So the teacher needs to be precise about what's expected in terms of "show your work." Mrs. Jones, do you want to see MY work or the work YOU would do?

But as for calculation errors...well, they're errors. If you make a mistake on a test, you should lose points. That's life.

I think there's a larger problem with giving homework (and additionally, class participation) too much influence over grades: these two things make a system more prone to being gamed. Say Little Johnny doesn't usually understand how to do the hard math homework problems. His mom or dad or the internet can help him get the answers, but he might not really understand in spite. Yet he'll get full credit for the assignment. Come test time, it's unlikely that all of the problems he doesn't get will show up on the exam, and their effects on his exam grade will be reduced because of homework and participation. When you throw in high homework scores and high marks for raising his hand all the time, and his overall grade has been gamed up higher than it should be (IMO): he can get a higher grade while knowing less.

If homework and participation weren't scored outside of a small number of points for done/not done, this wouldn't be possible. In this situation, the kids would have more incentive to try to understand problems, more incentive to say, "I really couldn't figure this out," and less incentive to GET 100%!!

I realize the conversation has evolved to a different focus, but forgive me as I would like to add a little more detail to the post about creating a student portfolio. Parents- early on in your child�s elementary years start keeping a container of some type filled with your child�s certificates, specifics about lessons, clubs, teams, or groups, community service, assessments from school, exceptional work, and any other artifacts that you feel capture your child�s moments in time where scholarship, leadership, service, character, or creativity were memorable. There may be times in your child�s life when s/he would like to participate in a camp or another opportunity where advocacy of your child may benefit from this authentic or specific evidence. I have seen parents provide artifacts when advocating for acceptance into gifted and talented programs. Thinking ahead through this type of organization can really help save time later.

As time goes on, usually beginning at about the middle level, these documents can become even more important as passions grow, and therefore stakes become higher in terms of your child�s participation in or recognition of academic or creative experiences. As the child grows, so, too, should his/her ownership of the record-keeping, though you as parents will recognize events that should be documented or artifacts that are worthy of keeping around for at least a few years while your child�s portfolio fodder grows before your child may.

In high school, release even more responsibility to your child. As opportunities arise, you will see the connections between the evidence you have been keeping and its relationship to questions asked on student applications for camps, honor societies, internships, jobs, and any other opportunities or recognitions for which a mind can profit from physical evidence to help stir some memories. In essence, this shoe box has become a very large and casual �portfolio� and �3-D resume�. In fact, as your child develops a resume in the later high school years, some of these experiences may provide helpful recollections.

The final product of a portfolio that a young adult may carry to an interview will be very different from that initial �shoe box� concept of the early years. First, it will be very refined and will only include the most impressive artifacts your child has. ACT scores, transcripts, letters of recommendation from teachers, copies of essays written for scholarships, certificates of achievement and so on will provide evidence that augments your child�s claims in an interview. I am in agreement that elementary artifacts are not appropriate here, and really you will need to judge the value of middle level artifacts in a high school portfolio. If excellence, for instance, in music is evidenced through experiences at the middle level that might be something your child would include in the high school portfolio if s/he is focusing on a music scholarship. It just depends.

In the case of my son, and many students I�ve taught and mentored over the years, the movement towards autonomy is both guided and encouraged, and yes- expected. Students should own their portfolio, and in our case it meant the parent and child sat together to organize that final product. Parents will help double check to ensure their children did not forget something substantial, and can be helpful in taking on a role of an observer who has seen the portfolio for the first time. What do you notice that is impressive? What spurs questions or clarification? Teacher mentors who are advocates for their students should be responsible enough to ensure students whose parents are not �organization savvy� receive guidance towards developing thoughtful record keeping.

I hope these comments are helpful. The concept of actively helping students develop portfolios is not new, but the catalyst for me besides advocacy of our own children at early ages developed when I served as an advisor for an honor society at one point in my career. Students would have profited from providing more than sketchy details regarding previous experiences in leadership or service. Thinking ahead and being organized enough to try to keep meaningful documents in one spot can save a little time and exacerbation later.

Thanks for letting me jump in here!

I think grades should depend nonlinearly on homework. If a student makes an effort on homework but cannot show any grasp of the subject on tests, the student gets a C (D?) for effort. If a student scores 100% on tests and does not do homework, he or she still gets an A. I think this policy makes sense in math, where the purpose of homework is to practice solving problems, but not in history or English, where essays and term papers are intrinsically important.

I agree with you, Bostonian. I also agree with Val and cricket, though. This is sort of the way that I structured things when I taught, Bostonian. I had the oddest way of determining the point total of anyone I've ever known-- I took the top score achieved on each assignment and made that "100%" on that assignment. Beyond that, I had no curve. This meant that there was good incentive for student's to collaborate with one another, and that I could (hypothetically) give the entire class A's. Never happened, of course, and I did have to give out F's, but not many.

I'd add to Val's statement about exam structure by saying that there is also a means of structuring homework so that it is a more meaningful assessment rather than just mechanistic practice.
My homework sets were created de novo in all of my classes, so there was no way to "game" those any more than the (every-Friday, open-notes) quizzes or the exams. They were supposed to be difficult so as to make the students think and apply what they were learning through short quizzes and in-class examples that I'd leave open-ended (I posted solutions immediately after class. So a bit of the same idea that Val was using for homework-- those quizzes and examples counted for very little grade-wise.

Homework sets had no other restrictions than that they HAD to be in the student's own handwriting. Students could work together on them, but they quickly learned that they had better be doing at least some of the work themselves, or at the very least, had better be UNDERSTANDING that work.

I awarded "partial credit" for partially correct answers on homework, tests, and quizzes, but the catch was that the student had to have shown work that I could decipher. Their choice, in other words.

This system is a LOT of work for a teacher, but it results in rock solid grade distributions, ultimately. ONLY the students with excellent mastery earn A's, and only those without it wind up not passing the class.

It also helped students who had test anxiety or other issues with performance, and it encouraged the formation of "learning communities" outside of class time.

To be clear, these were college students, however.

Let me also add, wrt portfolios, that yes, indeed this DOES favor those families with high SES.

Even if students have equal ABILITY/POTENTIAL, it's pretty clear which come from a families where outside activities cannot involve additional monies or parental TIME.

Also clear which of them come from a families where both money and time are not much of an object.

SES matters. It just does. It particularly matters in the fine and performing arts and in STEM, where resources in lower-income schools may compound the problem because they are frequently not seen as "core" missions, and are ill-funded and poorly maintained.

Parents who work in non-salaried, low-wage jobs can't necessarily get kids to even 'free' opportunities. Seriously, I hear "there are free opportunities" and I think, "Wow... 'let them eat cake,' much?" My parents couldn't take the time to get me to a lot of extracurricular things, even when they were affordable. Mostly, if it didn't happen through school-- it didn't happen. I don't even know how my DD would have the opportunities that she does without a parent who doesn't work full-time. That would not be possible if my DH and I both made $12 an hour and worked a job and a half each.

So yes, IMO, portfolios are an even more disparate thing than standardized testing is, just as Bostonian noted.

Bostonian, that article that you linked just goes to show you can put the kids in a great school and they still have to want to learn.

THIS.

And I'll add that even in public, "all children are theoretically equal" school programs, some are still more equal than others. A shining example would be the sixth grade math teacher (fulltime gifted magnet) who asked parents to furnish graphing calculators. She couldn't require them, of course, because then the school would have to furnish them. But it was strongly suggested.

No doubt there will always be opportunities available for some students that aren�t available for other students due to various factors ranging from low SES, to different state codes and provisions, to geographical location. (and on and on) Do you suggest that we take away opportunities available for some in order to make it �fair and equal� to those who don�t have those opportunities? I guess my question here is, how do you propose that the difference in opportunity problem be resolved?

Opportunity can never fully be equalized if parents have a role in educating and rearing their children, but the costs of being competitive in the admissions pool for universities and professional schools should not be raised needlessly. Here is an example. This weekend I spoke with a niece attending Columbia in NYC who will be applying to medical school next year. She has worked as an unpaid intern in a medical research lab for three summers to bolster her applications and can afford to do so because her parents are rich. When I asked her if the position was paid, she said that there was so much demand from pre-meds that labs did not need to pay them. Middle
and lower class college students need to work over the summer to pay for school and cannot take such internships. Medical schools should consider how much research experience to expect of applicants. (More broadly, they should consider whether a 4-year B.A. is necessary, when pre-med courses can be completed in two years.)

That's it exactly.

I don't want a surgeon working on me or a loved one who was able to LOOK attractive to med school admissions staffers by virtue of high SES and as a result, a more lengthy and prestigious CV.

I want one that really IS better than the rest of his/her peers.

Some of this also comes down to parents who don't know how to pad a child's resume. That is as large a factor in low SES as lack of financial means and opportunity. Parents who have never even attended college themselves aren't much in a position to posit what will look appealing to graduate programs in ten years, and they don't even know to ask about some opportunities, or steer their kids toward them.

College admissions has become an arms race, and this bothers me. The parental-made-or-heavily-assisted portfolio being discussed here is just another example of a new weapon in the arsenal. I agree with people who've argued that talented low SES students may be at a big disadvantage because they and their parents don't know how to game the system.

Universities in most other developed nations rely heavily on test scores for admissions (A-levels, the Leaving Certificate, etc.). These tests aren't like the SAT; they involve long-answer questions (no multiple choice) and are require students to have knowledge and synthesize it. An exam typically has a number of questions, and students are told to answer "3 of 5" or "5 of 8" or whatever. So students have some choice.

A-levels, etc. are based on a standard curriculum that's often nationalized. This way, everyone is studying the same stuff. And these tests can't be gamed the way that our admissions process can be gamed. In the UK and Ireland, each program at each university has its own requirements. If you get the points, you get in. If you don't, you don't (you can take the exams again next year). Even Prince William had to get the requisite number of points on his A-levels to get into the program he studied.

I suppose that people in the US might chafe at nationalized (or even state-level) curricula or having so much ride on one set of exams. However, having been through systems here and in Europe, I think that theirs is much fairer than ours, which is exploited left, right, and center. Our system was probably pretty reasonable until about 20 or 25 years ago, when the current craziness started. Today, college admissions and tuition have spiraled out of control, and our kids have to have umpteen activities, perfect grades, a work history, a history of athletics, volunteerism, and whatever else just to make it through application triage. And every year, some parents find new ways to help their kids get an "edge," thereby raising the stakes for all and contributing to more insanity.

We need meaningful reform that can't be gamed. This would mean that portfolios, unpaid internships, fancy extracurricular activities, and so on wouldn't count anymore. Everyone would be measured against exactly the same standard.

I guess we could take this back as far as you want to go with it. Some have been given the opportunity to have extended learning based on the fact that their gene pool is different which is unearned, some have been blessed with families who have the means to send them to private schools with perhaps better resources or teachers, none of which is going to be accounted for on test only entrance requirements.

Certainly we can use this thread as a venting session, however,
if an absolutely equal playing field is what you're after, I'm afraid you're never going to realize that, it's not how the competitive marketplace works whether we like it or not.

I don't think that Val or I either one are arguing for the abolishment of real differences in potential (which I'd argue that genetics plays into).

I actually have some misgivings regarding the removal of the asterisk from the SAT scores, for just this reason, in fact. There are some things that a slow processing speed or profound verbal learning disability make one less suitable for, after all. Those differences make a difference in the end, and without coping skills to compensate and level the playing field for one's self, well-- I think that pretty much anyone can understand why an airline pilot or emergency room physician can't get "time and a half" to accomodate that difference.


Some differences matter and they should probably matter because they are directly related to potential ability and its development.

The problem is that we've moved so far from a real meritocratic system that we are NOT getting our highest potential kids into the programs and disciplines that need to weed everyone else out.

That's a problem for everyone, and it's a terrible waste of resources to boot. Kids who only LOOK that good because of what their parents have done shouldn't be sucking up seats and resources that high potential kids could use to escape poverty.

I don't think that there is a perfect system. But this has gone unchecked for too long and it seems to have spiraled way out of control, quite frankly.

I don't think we want to take the nurture portion out of the equation either. Certainly without proper nurturing potential most often doesn't develop as it could, again, wasting potential.

There comes a point for a business or college where they're only willing to spend so much to develop potential when what is necessary for success is nearly developed or already is present with a shorter term investment. Is that fair to all? Of course not, did anyone promise fair at that point in life? Of course not. At a certain point in time a level playing field stops being a factor for business and college consideration at every check point.

I know I'm touching a nerve here and I apologize for that, however, I'm just saying what we all already know.

Nurturing isn't necessarily a synonym for primping, 'helping' with every accomplishment, and grooming (for lack of a better term).

There is a big difference between a child who is highly capable on his/her own-- and one that only SEEMS that way because of focused, high-dollar, parental over-involvement.

Honestly those are the parent that give parents like US a bad name. I will apologize in advance if I am inadvertently touching a nerve here, but I think that I am likewise only stating what is fairly obvious. This phenomenon has gotten so out of hand that people see one of those kids now, and the first thought isn't "Wow, what an extraordinary child," it's "Wow, what a pair of enmeshed parents...that poor child."

It is the exact same thing driving kids into gifted programs and AP coursework (kids who really have no business being there), to the detriment of the kids that DO-- either the ones sitting next to those classmates, or the ones that couldn't get seats in the room because of them.

The same thing happens on college campuses. Far too many kids whose PARENTS have done all that they can to make their kids seem remarkable are not really ready or particularly motivated to even be in a collegiate environment, and a few shouldn't be there in the first place.

Anyone that needs mom and dad to primp them for a decade, and needs four shots at the SAT probably isn't as good as they look on paper. That's all.

Which kid deserves an Ivy slot more? The one that gets a top-notch SAT score on the only attempt-- and with no prep course? Or the one that has a heavily padded resume and that same top-notch SAT score (the result of weekly coaching for three years and four separate attempts at the SAT)?

I'd argue for the former, regardless of extracurriculars. That shows a lot more ability and better capacity to take rapid advantage of opportunity. I'm speaking as someone who's seen plenty of college kids succeed, and even more of them struggle. Parents view "getting them in" as the goal, and they ought to view getting them THROUGH as the goal.




_________________________________________________

While I appreciate the parental motivation for producing a "portfolio" of a child's accomplishments, I'm obviously deeply conflicted about the pragmatic aspects of actually doing so.

I for one don't have any intention of doing this for/with my rising junior. Her transcripts, volunteer work, and test scores will have to do the talking, IMO. That probably won't be enough to get her into an Ivy, unless I miss my guess on what her PSAT/SAT's look like, but we're okay with that.

I just don't think it's a good trend, overall. For kids that have exceptional talents outside of traditional academic ones, it makes sense, of course. But Julliard isn't Yale; there should not be a need to 'showcase' a student via a portfolio at the latter, since the academic abilities of the student should be readily observable via SAT/ACT scores and transcripts, maybe coupled with an essay.

I don't think the OP could possibly have anticipated the way this thread would go! To the extent that he was just tossing out a suggestion, I for one would like to say thank you (although I also find the social justice focus here fascinating).

The mass assumption seems to be that parental help on creation of a portfolio equates to the parents doing everything for the child. I don’t think anyone contributing to this thread has that in mind.

Those test scores in the portfolio, the hours of volunteerism, the leadership awards, the athletic and musical achievements, etc., the student, not the parents, accomplished those. Did the parents set up opportunities for those things to happen? Likely, did they make sure the student had transportation to such opportunities? Likely, however, the student achieved the accomplishments noted in the portfolio. I don't think parents need to apologize for helping their child to succeed nor should they feel bad that their child reaped the benefits of the combined efforts outlined in the portfolio while others had less opportunity or support. Do I hope all children can have resources and support to help them achieve their potential? Absolutely.

If a student in college isn't capable on their own of living up to expectations, it's going to show pretty quickly. Any merit scholarship I've ever known about have restrictions of a min. GPA, the bigger the scholarship, the higher the expectation.....and at that point they don't care what your background is.

I'm sure we're all aware that the vast majority of college and universities offers needs based scholarships that are unavailable to higher SES families in an attempt to assist in providing greater opportunity to those families in need.

No, but there's a world of difference between creating an environment conducive to learning good study and work habits and turning college admissions into a high-stakes competition that can be manipulated. And that's where we are right now. This problem doesn't just affect gifted low SES students. It also affects gifted mmiddle class students whose parents also don't have the means to hire an expensive college admissions mentor or the means to send their kids to Andros Island or DC for a glamorous but unpaid summer internship. It also affects wealthier kids who don't want to play that game (common among the HG+ crowd at any economic level).

Don't misunderstand me: I'm not saying that there's something wrong with music lessons or internships. No way. I just don't think they should count toward college admissions. I think it's wrong that people aren't judged on a level playing field, using the same standards for everyone. And I say this as someone who has the means to send her kids to glamorous but unpaid internships on Andros Island. Kids should be doing this stuff because it's interesting and they'll get something meaningful out of it, not because it's fodder for an essay on a college application. The stuff described in that article is just so...shallow and self-centered:


There's a formula for showcasing personal depth now?

Many parents think other parents are pushing their children, but few put themselves in that category. There is no clear dividing line.


The Williams sisters had a very focused, involved father -- but
they are the ones hitting the tennis balls. My eldest son is gifted at math, and we are investing time and money in EPGY, Math Olympiad, math books etc. But he is the one participating in the math contest and scoring well on the SAT at a young age.
If we pay to send him to math camps when he is older, drive him to math classes and competitions, and otherwise support him, and as a result he wins math competitions, how will your eagle eye detect if he is "highly capable" or just "seems that way" because of his parents? We are just supportive parents. The parents who spend two weeks with their children at Epsilon math camp are overdoing it .


The more gifted a child is, the more "enmeshed" the parents may need to be, because the public schools won't be educating them.


Railing against SAT preparation on moral grounds is pointless. If people think it's effective, they will do it. Studies have found that such preparation does not raise scores much on average

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/19/AR2009051903058.html
Study Finds Relatively Small Gains From Test Coaching
By Valerie Strauss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 20, 2009


Yale has a student orchestra that tours the world http://yso.research.yale.edu/history/index.php . Given two students with similar grades and test scores, why not admit the
superb musician? You said that a student who scores well on the SAT "cold" is more impressive than a student getting the same scores after much preparation. By the same logic, a student who can get good grades and test scores AND be a good musician AND be a good athlete AND win a science competition is more impressive than a student who only has good grades and test scores, because the former student was likely able to get the same academic results in less time and therefore had more time for extracurriculars.

I think you've pretty well summed up why it's not enough anymore to simply have high test scores for a lot of college admissions and certainly for the vast majority of merit scholarships.

Colleges and Universities aren't just trying to teach students to be able to score high on tests these days, they're trying to put out a finished product that not only has the book knowledge but the life experience to be well rounded and prepared to be an attractive recruit into a global marketplace. A well rounded high school experience of extra curricular activities and experiences that might involve music, sports, leadership, volunteerism, travel, religion, etc. is evidence to many colleges and universities that a candidate is more than just a student, they have a balance of mind, body, and spirit and already shown evidence of preparation for a well rounded and productive life after college.

I think most parents are after the same goal, to prepare their child to be a well rounded, happy, and productive member of society and often sacrifice much in order to help their children to get there. That intention is ALWAYS admirable. Are some over zealous to the point of doing too much? Likely yes. Is it your job to determine what that point is? Hardly. We likely each know our children better than anyone else. You raise you children as you see fit, let other parents raise their children as they see fit. If someone has over parented to the point of creating damage, it'll show up pretty quickly once they reach college and that scholarship will open up for someone more suitable.