Alternative Proposal for the Modification of the
Selection Process for Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology
Proposed by Steve Hunt
Fairfax County School Board At-large
August 22, 2004
The demographic make up of Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology has included an alarmingly low number of African-American and Hispanic students. This is indicative of a problem in the system. There has been a great deal of focus on the selection process. This is not unusual since this is where the problem becomes visible. Consequently, a Blue Ribbon Panel was established to “develop and recommend to the Division Superintendent and the School Board specific admissions criteria to promote excellence in math, science and technology, while increasing the diversity of the TJSST student body.” The final product of the Blue Ribbon Panel was a report that stated numerous concerns and criticism of the current process, and recommendations for improvement of the selection process. The Fairfax County School System staff has developed a new selection process based on those recommendations. I have serious concerns regarding the consistency, effectiveness, transparency and level of effort associated with the staff proposed selection process. I am submitting the following process as an alternative to the FCPS staff proposal.
This proposal is in accordance with the Blue Ribbon Panel report general recommendations. It is designed to address the concerns stated in the report. The proposal accomplishes the recommended holistic review of students that may be qualified but not perform well on the test, through middle school appointments. This deviates from the specific recommendations of the report, but accomplishes the same goal at considerable less (~33%) level of effort than the current staff proposed selection process. Major universities are not in the position to accept direct appointments from individual schools the way FCPS can. Naturally this would not have been in the Blue Ribbon Panel members’ paradigm. This will allow for the holistic review of those students’ abilities that was recommended in the Blue Ribbon Panel report to be accomplished by those that know the students’ abilities best – their teachers. While this provides a qualitative element to the first stage of the selection process, it allows the other elements of the first stage to be quantitative.
The proposal attempts to address the desires and concerns that have been expressed from all sides of this issue by members of the community. It is specifically designed to be equitable across the spectrum of students’ strengths and personalities. The goal is to provide an equal opportunity for all students during the selection process to demonstrate their “high achievement and aptitude in math, science, and technology” (as stated in the resolution calling for the Blue Ribbon Panel).
Proposal Executive Summary
The general outline of this alternative proposal is listed below. Each aspect is developed in greater detail later in the report.
· The math and verbal sections would be weighted so that math would be 60% and verbal would be 40% of the total score.
· A weight would be given to upper level courses and the grades multiplied by the weights to give a transcript score.
· The test would be 70% of the total score and the transcript grades would be 30%.
· Unless the holistic review found a reason to reject the student, the student would be accepted.
Philosophy behind this proposal
The predominant reason for modifying the existing selection process is the concern that it is unfair. Therefore, one of the most important aspects of any new selection process is that it must have a greater degree of fairness than the existing selection process.
While modifying the process to address fairness in one area, great care must be taken that unfairness is not created in other areas. From a slightly different perspective, if we change to process to improve the accuracy and fairness to one subset of applicants, then we must ensure that we do not decrease the accuracy and fairness for other subsets of applicants.
There are some who would justify an advantage to a subset of applicants based on past errors. I believe that it is critical that in righting a wrong, a second wrong is not committed. The future students that apply to TJ were not responsible for any previous inaccuracies or lack of fairness. To subject them to any reverse inaccuracy or lack of fairness would be equally wrong. Regardless of what has been claimed, this is a zero sum gain. 450 students will be selected in the end. If a new selection process selects someone that the old one would not, then someone that would have been selected by the old process no longer will be provided that opportunity.
Our world is torn by histories of escalating wrongs in response to wrongs. One only has to look at the Balkans or Middle East to see the result in the anger and hatred that goes back over a thousand years resulting from the returning of wrong for wrong. If racial discourse is to end in this nation, it will only happen when fairness reigns for each individual regardless of the part of the world in which their ancestors were born.
I have endeavored to develop a process that is fair across the spectrum of qualified students that apply. I have attempted to take into consideration those that may not perform well on a single test along with those that may not be the most popular and outgoing student.
Blue Ribbon Panel Issues & Concerns
The Blue Ribbon Panel final report found that:
“a. the admissions and selection process does not take into full account, and may in fact eliminate from consideration entirely, some students with equal or even higher ability, aptitude, and interest in mathematics, science and technology—regardless of their race, ethnicity, or gender; and
b. flaws in the process disproportionately reduce the chances of admission for African American and Hispanic students.”
The report expands this finding when it states:
“The BRC finds that the focus on a single test score in the process inhibits the school’s capacity to achieve its mission and to fulfill the School Board’s commitment to diversity. Although it is clear that many qualified students advance to the next round in the selection process, it is likely that the system introduces two types of error: some students in the pool of 800 may not embody the characteristics that reflect the school mission statement and that TJHSST values most highly, while some of the excluded students may indeed have the characteristics that TJHSST is seeking. There is abundant evidence showing that such qualities as intellectual curiosity, motivation for the sheer joy of learning, and the passion for scientific pursuits are not easily captured by standardized tests and grade point averages. These qualities are not well reflected in the selection index formula currently used at TJHSST.
Similarly, a concern for one’s classmates, the understanding of the importance of collaborative effort, and an appreciation of cultural differences are important qualities that are not measured by the test or captured in middle school grade transcripts. Also not included in the selection index are leadership skills, an ability to communicate well with peers, or an appreciation of the ethical consequences of one’s actions, all of which are described in TJHSST’s statement of core beliefs as being important.”
It is in responding to this finding that the School Board is considering modifying the TJ selection process. The predominant concern is that “some students in the pool of 800 may not embody the characteristics that reflect the school mission statement and that TJHSST values most highly, while some of the excluded students may indeed have the characteristics that TJHSST is seeking.” The recommendations by the Blue Ribbon Panel are designed to address this potential shortcoming in the current process. The modification to the selection process proposed by FCPS staff is an attempt to follow the Blue Ribbon Panel recommendations. My proposal addresses this concern and is within the guidelines of the Blue Ribbon Panel with significantly lower level of effort and expense than the staff proposal.
FCPS Staff Proposal
The Blue Ribbon Panel recommends “that the selection process become more comprehensive and that the information currently considered only at the semifinalist stage be considered for all applicants.” The staff proposal accomplishes this (as briefed to the School Board on July 14, 2004) by applying the current second stage selection review process to all applicants. Consequently the selection process would become a single stage process with all applicants providing 3 recommendations along with other biographical information. This is not in keeping with the recommendations made by the Blue Ribbon Panel and it would increase the level of effort in teacher recommendations along with application reviews by 3 – 4 fold.
The Blue Ribbon Panel Report recommended that:
“6. Ensure that the initial consideration of applications is made by a small group of highly skilled people who are trained in all components of the comprehensive application review process.
NOTE: Clearly the staffing for the initial stage would need to increase, though for a fairly short period of time. Through its consideration of all documents in the applications, and bearing in mind at all times that TJHSST is able to offer admission to perhaps only 15% of its applicants, the committee in this initial review process would eliminate roughly half, or more than half, of the applicants from further consideration. It would seem desirable for the semifinalist pool to reach roughly 1000 at a minimum and 1400 or 1500 at a maximum, with the number fluctuating from year to year depending on the strength of the pool. At no point should there be a goal as fixed as the current 800 cut-off. It is also important that any readers or subcommittees not be given an exact number of students they may advance, but rather a rough target. It is conceivable that assignment of applicants into groups for a reader or subcommittee could result in groups of varying strength. The ultimate goal is to move forward the strongest applicants within the entire applicant pool, and not equal numbers from each subgroup of files.”
Since it recommended that “a small group of highly skilled people” accomplish the initial selection process review, the recommended process is a two step process with some form of high level review being performed in the first step. The level of effort of reviewing “the semifinalist pool to reach roughly 1000 at a minimum and 1400 or 1500 at a maximum” is significantly less that reviewing all applicants. This number recommended by the Blue Ribbon Panel is also in line with the number of applicants that I recommend be reviewed in the second stage of my proposed process.
By requiring that all applicant packages be reviewed, the number of recommendations and reviews would increase significantly. Based on the 2003-2004 freshman class applications, the number would have gone up 3.25 times. If the communication aspect of the Blue Ribbon Panel is implemented successfully, that number most certainly would increase.
2600 applications would increase the number of recommendations from the current 2400 to 7800 to be written by the same number of middle school teachers. When teachers are required to accomplish 3-4 times the work in the same timeframe, they will not be able to apply the level of detail and individual attention for each recommendation. Considering the staff proposed process is putting a greater emphasis on the qualitative aspects of the application packages, more importance is being placed on something that the same process will cause to have less refinement and individual detail. This could induce greater inaccuracies and reduce fairness in the process.
The number of packages that have to be read will also increase significantly. If 2600 packages are evaluated by 5 reviewers each, that would require 13,000 reviews. If each reviewer took 15 minutes to review each package, that would take 3,250 hours. In order to accomplish this in 4 weeks, that would require 20 people, full time for an entire month, each reading 650 packages. In the current process, 8 teams read 100 packages each. Applying that process would require 26 teams and 130 people. These numbers are based on the 2003-2004 freshman class numbers. Again, with a successful communication program, these numbers would go up! The proposed budget did not include the cost of paying substitutes for all of those teachers while they are reviewing TJ application packages. These large numbers of packages to review would invariably lead to spending less time in reviewing each package. Again, this could potentially result in a less accurate and less fair process.
The alternate proposal would increase the current level of effort by half verses the staff proposal which increases the level of effort 3.25 times. It would require approximately 8.2 man-months or 10 teams with 50 people. The current process requires 6 man-months and 8 teams of 40 people.
Alternative Selection Process
This alternative proposal provides a process that addresses the concerns of the Blue Ribbon Panel and is in keeping with all of their general recommendations. Other than differing in the application of only one of their specific recommendations, it follows all other specific recommendations. This proposal requires less than half of the man-months during the review of application packages that the FCPS staff proposal would require.
The primary purpose for modification of the existing selection process was because “some of the excluded students may indeed have the characteristics that TJHSST is seeking.” The recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Panel was “that the selection process become more comprehensive and that the information currently considered only at the semifinalist stage be considered for all applicants.” This proposal would use the people that know the students best, the teachers and administrators in their own school, to provide that aspect of the selection process. The students that fit the TJ profile, but did not do well on the test, would be most easily recognized by those that have been teaching them for over a year. This would be less arbitrary than the review of 3000 applications by individuals that do not know the students. This selection is accomplished by those that have observed the students’ “intellectual curiosity, motivation for the sheer joy of learning, and the passion for scientific pursuits” along with their “concern for one’s classmates, the understanding of the importance of collaborative effort, and an appreciation of cultural differences.” It will provide a better selection process than one based on who created the best TJ resume.
This in school aspect of the selection process is provided by the school appointing a number of students to the second phase of the selection process. The concern centered on these students not getting the full holistic review of their application package. By being appointed to the second phase, they would receive the holistic review. There would be up to 200 students appointed via this method.
This is the only aspect of the alternative proposal that is not inline with the Blue Ribbon Panel’s specific recommendations. It does comply with their general recommendations and addresses the issue upon which they based their recommendation for change. Major universities would not have the option to receive this type of direct input to their selection process. Consequently, it would not be something they would be able to recommend based on their own experiences.
The Blue Ribbon Panel recommendations retained the test as a part of the selection process. The FCPS evaluation of the test has determined that it is an accurate measure of ability. This proposal continues to use the test as a major aspect of the first stage of the selection process and a contributor to the holistic review in the second stage. The emphasis in the first stage is reduced in accordance with the Blue Ribbon Panels recommendation. This would then be used as a component of the first stage of the selection process and included in the holistic review of the second stage. In order to address the concern that a student only has a single opportunity to do well on the test, there would be two opportunities to take the test. Students can opt to take it both times or just once. The highest composite score would be used (math and verbal from each test could be combined).
The FCPS staff concept of using the transcript as opposed to a simple GPA is a good idea and has been incorporated into this proposal. If the courses are given a weighted factor, this transcript score could be calculated automatically. This would then be used as a component of the first stage of the selection process and included in the holistic review of the second stage.
The Blue Ribbon Panel recommends a two-stage process. This proposal follows that recommendation. Since the primary concern of the Blue Ribbon Panel and the general recommendation for modification is captured in the school-based appointment, the entrance exam and transcript is retained as the major elements of the first stage of the selection process. More emphasis is placed on the transcript. In order to find a way to include those students that did not have the opportunity to be reviewed holistically, the flavor of the Blue Ribbon Panel specific recommendations appears to move away from the use of the test and transcript. However, since this proposal accomplishes that in a different manner, it does not have to include the other holistic factors in this aspect of the first stage of the selection.
Since numerous accommodations are made for those students that are not strong in taking tests, there should be an accommodation for those students that are highly intelligent, good test takers, but may not be the most outgoing students in 7th grade. Many students in this category will blossom in the unique environment at TJ, but may not have stood out in teachers’ minds in 7th grade. They are often quiet, do their work, get A’s but are hardly noticed, especially since they may not require much effort on the part of the teacher. There are also those that challenge the teachers due to their high level of intelligence. Some of these students can be a little annoying, but would fall in place when challenged in the TJ environment. The movement to the holistic process would limit the opportunity for these students to be selected. In order to balance the movement toward the holistic approach, this proposal provides a conditional acceptance for the students that are the top 200 scores of a test and transcript composite. Their recommendations and biographical data would be reviewed to ensure that there were no disqualifying issues. If there are no disqualifying issues, these 200 students would be offered acceptance to TJ. Historically 195 of the top 200 scoring students have been selected by the current second stage holistic review of the student applications. This ensures that this end of the student personality spectrum continue to have a fair opportunity to attend TJ.
Specific Discussion of the Alternative Selection Process
1. The communication element of the Blue Ribbon Panel and FCPS staff proposal would proceed as proposed.
The communication program recommendations were widely accepted. The details associated with the plan should include what the recruitment team and outreach teams will do, how they will do it and the expected response to their actions.
2. The entrance exam would remain unchanged.
The test will remain 70 verbal and 50 math questions.
3. The entrance exam will be provided on two occasions.
The exam is currently given one time with an additional make-up testing opportunity. In the alternate proposal, the test would be given twice each year. There will be a make-up opportunity for those who have not taken the test at all. Students could take the test twice, but would only be required to complete the essay questions once. The highest composite test score would be used in the selection process. This would require the testing firm to provide two versions of the test each year. However, the cost would probably be less that the additional cost of the substitutes and lost classroom time.
4. The initial score would consist of the entrance exam and grades with the following changes:
The intent of the selection process is to find students with demonstrated high achievement and aptitude in math, science and technology. Consequently, the math skills should be emphasized in the weighting of the test score. The equal weighting of the math and verbal in the past may have been to aid in selecting more well-rounded students. Since there is a greater emphasis in determining this through the teacher recommendations, biographical data and other qualitative aspects, and less weight on the test in the overall evaluation, the test should be re-focused toward a greater weight on the math portion.
The staff recommended that as opposed to just using the GPA, that the student transcript would be used. By giving classes a weight factor, the transcript score can be calculated automatically. The weight could be assigned to each individual class or by level (i.e., general education, G&T, and honors levels). This transcript score would be used individually during the detailed review of the second phase of the selection process.
The Blue Ribbon Panel expressed concern that too much emphasis was being placed on the test. This reduces the emphasis and puts more emphasis on the transcript score. By increasing the weight of the transcript score, the intrinsic aspects that are picked up by the classroom teacher, the desire to learn, the motivation of the student and other qualitative aspect that are critical to student achievement are given more weight in the first stage selection. This composite score would be used to determine the top 1200 student scores.
5. The top 200 scoring students would have conditional acceptances to TJ.
The modifications to the selection process are to improve the fairness for qualified students that do not do well on tests or had “a bad day” the day of the test. The accommodations being made are shifting the important factors in the selection process to the extrovert students that teachers know and like. In order to balance the accommodations made for those students, there should be accommodations for students that do test well and are not the extroverted students that teachers know well. There are very intelligent students that are not the most popular and outgoing students. They may not have a wealth of extracurricular activities. These are the students that blossom in the TJ environment. When they find themselves in the unique environment at TJ where is it is acceptable to be smart and they are surrounded by students of similar abilities, then they feel the confidence to be more outgoing. It would be equally unfair to create a selection process that handicaps their ability to be accepted at TJ. Additionally, 195 of the top 200 scoring students have been selected in the past.
This review would be less detailed than the holistic review of the remaining 1000 packages. It could be accomplished with only 2 reviews per package and less time per package since it is a screening for disqualifying issue.
6. The 201 through 1000 top scoring students would be advanced to the second round of the selection process.
The next 800 top scoring students will advance to the next phase of the selection process. They would have to get the teacher recommendations and provide the biographical data.
7. Each middle school will be allowed to appoint students that did not make the top 1000, but who, in the view of the school, are capable and deserving to be reviewed in the second stage of the selection process. Up to 200 total students will be added to the second round of the selection process. Each school’s allocation will be determined on a per capita basis determined by the number of students in their 8th grade class.
The primary purpose for modification of the existing selection process was because “some of the excluded students may indeed have the characteristics that TJHSST is seeking.” The recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Panel was “that the selection process become more comprehensive and that the information currently considered only at the semifinalist stage be considered for all applicants.” The staff proposal would have the reviewers make this determination. However, the people that would know the students best are the teachers and administrators in their own school. The students that fit the TJ profile, but did not do well on the test, would be most easily recognized by those that have been teaching them for over a year. This would be less arbitrary than the review of 3000 applications by individuals that do not know the students and will provide a much better selection than one based on who created the best TJ resume.
There would be 200 students that applied and took the test but did not score in the top 1200 that would be advanced to the second phase of the selection process. The number of students per middle school that could be appointed would be based on the number of students in their 8th grade class.
This follows directly the recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Panel to include a more comprehensive process. It does accomplish it in a different manner than their specific recommendation. However, major universities do not have the opportunity to accept this type of appointment from a limited number of feeding schools. Therefore it would not be expected to be a part of their normal operating procedures. It is absolutely in line with their general recommendations.
They would have to get the teacher recommendations and provide the biographical data.
8. The 200 conditionally accepted students and 1000 students that have been advanced to the second stage of the selection process will be required to obtain 3 recommendations and to provide the biographical data for the second phase screening process.
The 1200 students would follow the current application process. This will increase the number of teacher recommendations by a half, but it is better than an increase of 3-4 times. This would ensure roughly 1200 students would be accepted or reviewed holistically. This is at the center of the Blue Ribbon Panel’s recommended semifinalist pool of “roughly 1000 at a minimum and 1400 or 1500 at a maximum.”
9. The recommendations and biographical data of the 200 conditionally accepted students will be reviewed to ensure there are not disqualifying issues.
In order to ensure that there are not any traits, behavior or past actions that would normally have disqualified an applicant in the holistic review, the packages are reviewed. This review does not have to be as thorough or in as a time consuming manner as the holistic second phase review. Consequently, it does not take as long per package or need as many personnel as the holistic review of step 10.
10. The recommendations and biographical data of the 1000 students that were advanced to the second phase will holistically review in order to select the students to fill out the 450 student freshman class.
The second stage of the selection would proceed as it is in the current admission process per the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel. They would select the remaining students to fill the freshman class. The reviewers would still be placed in to teams that receive a balanced set of application packages to review. The current process of ranking all of the packages by test/transcript score and distributing them across the reviewing groups would continue (the first group would get scores 1, 13, 25, 37, etc, the second group would get number 2, 14, 26, 38, etc.).
Conclusion
This alternative selection process proposal is in line with the Blue Ribbon Panel Report. It addresses the concerns of the report and follows the general recommendations. It does deviate from the specific recommendations by accomplishing the same goals and intent of the report through alternative means. It is in keeping with the intent and desires of the Blue Ribbon Panel report to develop a process that is fair to all applicants while maintaining the high academic standards of Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology.
Powered by LifeServantA Service of Vertical Symmetry
