tuition grant

[Emily Martine]

Nick,

In response to your quote

"2) Given that systems that are 'purely merit based' are inherently biased against the disenfranchised in our society (whether that is through class, race, whatever) it is a good idea to ensure that such systems are modified in such a way that this unavoidable bias can be at least minimized."

I agree. In principle, this makes sense. However, in practice, it is very difficult to "modify these systems" to separate income from achievement, race from class, etc. and to give everyone a fair shot. 

For example (another anecdote having to do with young children -- sorry, that is the world I'm living in right now and I still think anecdotes can tell us a lot about what is happening on the ground) the Chapel Hill school system will not use processing or "IQ" tests to identify gifted students, because they say they are culturally biased. Instead, they look at achievement, which, IMO, is far more culturally biased. In kindergarten, a kid has to be 2 years ahead as measured by a reading achievement test or a math achievement test to be identified as gifted. Even when my son was identified as being 2 years ahead and meeting the stated criteria, they did not identify him or any kindergarteners as gifted, because, according to them, kids have had different opportunities, and if you use achievement standards, you can't tell who is "gifted" and who has been hothoused, held back a year before starting school,  or simply exposed to better educational opportunities. I totally agree. Achievement is not a good measure of giftedness, especially the first year in school. So, because they have eliminated all culturally biased means of testing and identifying kids, they are left with no real way to identify gifted kids, and those kids don't get the opportunity to have a challenging and appropriate education.

This serves the school well because they have no resources to serve gifted kids younger than 3rd grade anyway. My son, now in first grade and 3 years ahead in reading, did finally get identified this year. I feel that some sort of processing test as PART of the picture, combined with achievement, classroom performance, etc. would have shed a lot more light on who is really bright  and needs accelerated learning vs. who has been "worked with," so that kids can be identified and served earlier. It seems that if you eliminate everything that is culturally biased, you are left with nothing but subjective assessment, which is going to depend a lot on teachers and their own prejudices. I think many teachers are more culturally biased than tests. Our school district has realized that the gifted kids come predominantly from rich white or Asian families, so they have tried to widen the program to include more minorities. Because tests don't usually identify these students, they are relying more on subjective teacher assessments. Where is this going?

We are left asking, "What does gifted mean?" Does it mean you do well on a processing test? An achievement test? Does it mean you are obedient in the classroom? Does it mean you are a quick learner in school? I think it means you are out of the range that is served in the regular classroom, and need an accelerated and/or deeper curriculum. ALL of these criteria seem to favor the wealthy. Kids from well-off families are at such an advantage as early as age two. I have read studies about the differences in vocabulary used in the home between wealthy, middle class and poor families, and by kindergarten, there is no way to make up for the deficit in vocabulary that kids from poor families have. "Intelligence" as measured by the means we currently have available, is a combination of nature and nurture, although since becoming a parent of 3 I am starting to believe that nature has a much larger role than I had previously thought. I don't see an easy way to separate "merit" from wealth. I think we should try, but not at the cost of watering down educational programs or imposing a double standard or some sort of complex system that people figure out how to "work."

It has been documented that people are discriminated against/ treated differently because of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, physical appearance, dress, height, weight, hair color, age, regional accent, and even first name. All this stuff is just so intertwined, people are all individuals with different situations, and most attempts that I see to "level the playing field" in educational settings, the workplace, or whatever, involve simply grouping people by ethnicity, which is insulting, and have failed miserably. 

For example, I knew people at my former company (a global, Fortune 10 company) who were reluctant to hire minorities, because we were told by HR that if our minority employees screwed up, as anyone could, we could not fire them for fear of a lawsuit. One colleague of mine was told she could fire her secretary, who, despite repeated warnings, talked on personal calls all day long, but then HR immediately put a stop to the termination when they found out she was a minority. So affirmative action and anti-discrimination policies, which was meant to help minorities, actually ended up hurting minorities who later sought employment. Not that people thought they were going to be poor performers, but as a manager, it is good to know that if someone does not perform well, you have the option of firing them. 

As a person who has had limited career options and been prejudged by others because of a disability (being legally blind), and who has also managed to be pretty successful and happy in work and in life, I think at some point you just have to accept the hand you are dealt and do the best you can with it, realizing that because of your situation, you may have to work harder than others to achieve the same results. Life is not fair, and most attempts to make it fair only make things worse.

I know this sounds ugly, Nick. I am not some raging conservative, believe it or not, and I do agree with much or what you say. I don't, however, think that we should eliminate merit-based scholarships because we can't find a fair way to measure merit. I think we just have to do the best we can with hits experiment. Being accepted to and graduating from NCSSM is quite an achievement worthy of some merit and a good place to start. I, like many I knew at NCSSM, came from a family that may have looked wealthy on paper because my parents had no debt other than a small mortgage, but in reality they had 2 kids in college (one at a very expensive private school) they were divorced, so supporting 2 households, and they were not willing to spend their retirement or take out a second mortgage to pay for college. The small merit-based scholarship that I had from a private foundation was very much appreciated. 

Emily Martine '88
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/alumni/attachments/20070417/8d689a0b/attachment.html