Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment Criticism on our local GATE program

Our local GATE/gifted program is a full-time, self-inclusion program that starts in fourth grade. It's open by competitive exam only- the school district offers the OLSAT, or you can get private testing for a limited type of IQ tests (like the WISC, etc.).
Our local paper featured an editorial from someone criticizing the fact that there are very few African-American and Hispanic children and more white and Asian kids who qualify. The problem is that there are more kids who qualify than there are actual seats in the class, and they rank-order the kids by score.
Any thoughts???
I'm always worried that they will eliminate the GATE program, which so many public school districts have done nationally.

What the biggest school system in my state did a few years back was lower the admission scores for minority and poor students for TAG (our equivalent of GATE): http://www.denverpost.com/technology/ci_8442882

Why, if there are too many applicants and not enough seats, do they want less seats instead of more. That shows an interest in the program which should indicate expantion. Start lobbying for a larger gate program. I had the same thoughts on the "gifted-left behind" thread and in the stories about the competition in NYC for spots in the good schools. If more people want it then why is the answer to get rid of it? That's just mean.

Money?

My thoughts on lowering admissions criteria: this should not be done on the basis of race alone, but on the basis of socioeconomic status is possibly a good idea as long as it has a rational basis as to both the need (which seems obvious, at least where criteria depend on academic achievement or linguistic ability in English) and the correct type and amount of the lowering (which seem less obvious).

Renzulli's Compacting Curriculum program showed that teachers could identify targeted students and eliminate half the curriculum for them without impacting their achievement on tests aimed for students a year older. The teachers usually provided enrichment in that freed-up time, and sometimes accelerate. I've said before in this forum, I'd like to see an array of supports and services for different types and different levels of gifted and creative students, the way we have a wide variety of supports and services for different types and levels of disabilities.

The growth NCLB requires is growth in the percentage of students who score as proficient on their state tests. This is an alternative to meeting specific targets of proficiency for the student body as a whole and specific sub-groups of students (racial and ethnic minorities, English Language Learners, and disabled students, for example). Nothing about the growth model encourages public schools to make sure that students who are already meeting or exceeding proficiency have to stretch.

Some of us renegade teachers do it anyway. If we are not teaching Reading, Language Arts, or Math, we can usually get away with it.

It will be interesting to see how the Common Core standards affect schools, since they are geared a little bit more towards critical thinking than most of the older state standards. As a social studies teacher, I find that I have to change very little about what I teach to accommodate the Common Core standards. What I used to call a stance, I call a claim. That's about it.

There are problems with just giving automatically minority and poor students easier access into the gifted program by allowing them to achieve a lower score to get in. What if your child is Hispanic but the parents are both lawyers and wealthy? Is that really fair?
Out here in California, we had the famous DeBakke case that ultimately led to the Supreme Court striking down most of the affirmitive action laws. In that case, a white male college student argued that it was unfair that the University of California medical schools set aside 10% (or whatever the percentage was) of the incoming class for minorities. He got rejected from the med school, and he argued that minorities with lower scores, etc. got in over him. He later went to a private medical school and became a doctor, and years later, that ruling led to elimination of race solely as a factor for admission.
I was curious if other gifted programs in your districts have faced this issue.
I agree, I think it's all about the money.