From: Mark Niemoeller
Columbus
In response to Sarah Nevins’ letter to the editor (“Proposed BCSC policy change will benefit all high-ability kids”, July 28):
Logically, a “high-ability” program in education would select students who have demonstrated it and would assess them on a basis of achievements, such as good grades. In this context, “high ability” and “demonstrations of achievement” are not fundamentally different. Nor is “competence”, since the program would assess students solely on that basis. By definition, a high-ability program is selective and competitive and includes only a top fraction of the student body.
Yet Bartholomew Consolidated School Corp. and Nevins try to redefine the concept, wanting “multifaceted” and “beyond the traditional” assessment bases. But those are just euphemisms for lowering/eliminating the high-ability standard. If a high-ability program selects students on an easier basis than achievement, the high-ability qualification standard is lowered and the program’s name loses meaning. Adding criteria that are unrelated to achievement, such as less-fortunate backgrounds or circumstances, contradicts the whole point. If bases of assessment include “race” or “culture”, the program is prejudiced at best and racist at worst; and unconstitutional, as SCOTUS recently ruled. If the standard is further lowered to some kind of “potential” that has not been demonstrated and therefore cannot be measured, the program is a joke. Speculated potential does not translate to demonstrated ability. Upon what does BCSC plan to base such speculation? They offer no real solution to assess ability outside of achievement. Unreasonable expectation + mislabeled program = bad policy. A high-ability program must be based on proven ability, or at least measurable potential.
To think that such a selective program is unfair to those who do not qualify is not only to mis-define the concept, but also to misunderstand the point of the basic grading system in academic performance. And to blame the selective high-ability program for being “homogenous” and for “rewarding and privileging the privileged” is to misconstrue “equal opportunity”. A true high-ability standard sees only demonstrated ability; it does not see race or ethnicity or backgrounds (or hidden/speculated potential). What is truly unfair is to violate the program’s name and include students who do not qualify, thereby cheating those who truly qualify.
Simply increasing the capacity of a high-ability group does not change its selectivity, but increasing it to allow for lower standards does; the logic of which eventually qualifies the whole student body. Diluting a pool of high achievement by including/rewarding low achievement is not only unfair to the students who truly qualify, it reduces the whole group’s incentive to achieve and is antithetical to education. Do we want a true high-ability program that rewards achievement, or just another handout of participation trophies? Of course, if eliminating selectivity is the objective, the solution is simple: don’t have a selective program.
Or if eliminating achievement and competence standards in education is the objective, the solution is even simpler: just eliminate public education.
