Merit and Diversity in College Admissions

The recent Supreme Court ruling against race-conscious university admissions has everyone thinking about racism, privilege, equity, merit, and a host of other issues. Here are some thoughts.

Most college admissions are thought of through three main lenses: Potential, merit, and diversity. I'm ignoring legacy (totally separate issue), athletics, and others that account for relatively small numbers of seats. I'm sure it's more complicated that that, but I think American society generally thinks of admissions with a mix of these three lenses.

Potential: Who *could* succeed at the institution if given the opportunity? This is perhaps the most important lens because schools want students who can succeed. This is a big set, and is not ordered. MANY more students have the ability to succeed at MIT, Stanford, and the Ivies than they admit every year. 

Merit: Assuming we can give everyone a score based on a test and/or HS transcript (a combo of GPA and number of AP/IB courses), this provides a ordered list. I don't believe it's a perfect ordering because of how flawed the tests are, but it's still somewhat of an ordered list. If two students have the same grades, but one has more IB classes, then the latter is higher on the list. In case you haven't looked at the studies, SAT scores do a really bad job of predicting performance in college. Grades do a better job, but also aren't perfect.

Diversity: Most schools want some sort of diversity. I would argue that diversity brings tremendous value to most schools and to society as a whole. As a diverse society, we need scientists and doctors and lawyers and judges and politicians and writers who reflect our diversity. Individuals benefit from a wealth of diverse perspectives. Note that this isn't just racial diversity. Think about gender and economic class and athleticism and artistic talents and so on.

So, with those lenses defined, a few thoughts:

1) Some people tend to ignore the size of the Potential lens, ignore Diversity, and instead focus on the Merit lens to the exclusion of the other two. I suspect that most selective schools start with the Potential lens, (they really need students who can succeed) then look to balance Merit and Diversity.

2) Studies show mirror-image biases: Teachers tend to expect and demand less of Black students and tend to expect and demand more of Asian students. Negative perceptions of Blacks and positive perceptions of Asians become self-fulfilling prophecies.

3) Some people suggest that affirmative action's goal is a form of reparations for slavery. That is NOT the case. Affirmative action is an attempt to address the fact that institutional racism and implicit biases make it harder for Black and Brown students to climb the Merit ladder regardless of their potential. As a society, we do a terrible job of identifying and fostering academic potential in Black and Brown students.

Merit is important, but traditional (and imperfect) ways of quantifying merit should not be the only lens through which we look at college admissions.

Opening Schools While Dealing with the Delta Variant

Schools are opening up as the Delta Variant is ascending. This could be a tough Fall.

What is the outlook for Covid cases?

UVA has a model for how the number of cases could progress. Here is what it looks like for Virginia:

The first peak represents last January. The second peak is the delta wave we are building towards. This model indicates that the worst of Delta could be in September and early October. Here is a quote from the authors: 

If the Delta variant continues to spread, cases could possibly peak at levels higher than previous January peaks. 

What should schools do?

Needless to say, FCPS's hands are currently tied by state legislation. If cases indeed surge as the UVA model suggests, AND the Governor unties the School Board's hands, then:

• Keep concurrent off the table of options. It's a terrible option that serves everyone poorly. 
• Switch to remote when public health and safeguarding your staff necessitate it. 
• Set the expectation that K-6 and special needs students will be the first to return as soon as case levels are low enough to do so safely. 
• Bring back MS/HS extracurricular activities before bringing MS/HS students back to classrooms.  
• CDC guidance indicates that virus spread and public health need to be thought about holistically. Every single thing we do to open up multiplies the spread of the virus. Opening up MS/HS in-person classrooms AND extracurriculars have multiplicative effects. If you are going to pick one, I suggest the latter for the following two reasons. 
• Allowing MS/HS extracurriculars provides students with valuable experiences without necessitating shuffling students from class to class. Unlike in ES, the secondary model of students moving from class to class is bound to spread the virus widely through the school and make contact tracing challenging. 
• Keeping MS and HS students remote would provide more space in which classes for students in ES and with special needs (e.g., Special Education, ELL, etc.) could be held while implementing social distancing strategies.

None of the choices ahead are easy ones, and I don't envy the School Boards that have to wrestle with them. Still, if our communities can take decisive action now, we can push down the peak and get back to normal quickly.

Opening School in the Fall: The Problem with Concurrent

K-12 Schools are planning how they will open in the Fall. Here are some thoughts on the options.

Back to Normal (AKA "Pandemic? What Pandemic?")

Many schools around the country plan to return to pre-pandemic normal in the Fall. The only concerns with that are that some people (both students and teachers) ...

1. Have significant health issues that make them particularly susceptible to a serious case of COVID and/or preclude them from taking the vaccine.
2. Have learned that virtual learning has significant benefits that help them deal with social, emotional, physical, or logistical issues. 

Being in-person is great for most students and staff, but it would be somewhere between critical and nice if there were a virtual option as well. An NPR/Ipsos poll indicates that (for a host of reasons) 29% of parents want to stick with remote learning indefinitely. 

Back to Normal, but with the Option of a Separate Virtual School

Some school systems are standing up virtual schools for those teachers and students who can't return to in-person school. This requires buying or creating the curriculum and software that are needed to make virtual learning really work. It also requires having teachers, administrators, counselors, ELL specialists, instructional coaches, and other supports that are focused on the virtual environment.

Concurrent

Some schools will choose to continue concurrent instruction they are currently using. In this model, teachers will be responsible for both in-person and virtual students at the same time. I have major problems with this.

1. The curriculum, tools, assessments, and supports that are best for in-person learning are not the same as those for virtual learning. As a result, either in-person or virtual students (or both) will be given a solution that is a poor fit for their situation.
2. Students who are remote will get much less attention and support than they need, while the need to address both populations will cause teachers and other staff huge amounts of stress.
3. Virtual K-12 schools around the country have created systems that support virtual students and staff, and they are different from in-person systems. Doing a good job of supporting ELLs and special ed and struggling or gifted students is different in a virtual setting. As are community building and collaboration and counseling and family engagement. These challenges require different systems in a virtual environment than we use in brick-and-mortar schools.
4. I have spoken to teachers (and other staff) who hate concurrent instruction enough that they will resign, retire, or take a leave of absence if forced to continue the concurrent instruction they are doing now. 
5. Reports from school districts around the country who are using concurrent instruction should give us all pause. Here is a quote from an NBC News article Educators teaching online and in person at the same time feel burned out: 

"Teachers are reporting high levels of stress and burnout around the country, including in Kansas, Michigan and Salt Lake Tribune reported, principals say their teachers are having panic attacks while juggling both.

High levels of teacher stress affect not only students and their quality of education, but the entire profession, said Christopher McCarthy, chair of the educational psychology department at the University of Texas at Austin.

'When teachers are under a lot of stress, they are also a lot more likely to leave the profession, which is a very bad outcome,' he said."

Many teachers and students welcomed the return to classrooms for hybrid this Spring because it means we are on a path to normalcy. But concurrent instruction is not sustainable, and will lead to VERY poor learning outcomes as well as significant staff attrition. Concurrent seems like the easy solution, but just because it's being done now doesn't mean it should continue. 

Through this school year, I have heard people raise equity as an issue totally disingenuously, so I'm sure they will do so in this case as well. We serve all students better when we give them educational systems and supports that match their needs. If we are going to allow students to choose virtual, then the only equitable way to do that is to do it well. Having them as add-ons to a physical class serves nobody well. As one educator told me recently:

If equity is about giving kids what they need, the best way to achieve that is to have a setting that supports the unique needs of the different learning platforms with teachers specifically trained to meet the needs of the kids in front of them.

Standing up separate virtual schools is the only way to serve virtual and in-person students well. 

Why Fix the Best School? Because It's Broken

The Thomas Jefferson High School for Science & Technology is consistently ranked as one of the best public high schools in the country. We can debate the metrics that are used for such lists, but it's hard to argue with the results the school produces: Tons of exemplary students who gain admission to impressive colleges and universities and go on to amazing careers. TJ is a success.

So why would anyone suggest changing anything about the school? The table below shines some light on the problems.

Three things jump out at me from this table. First, Hispanic and Black students aren't even applying to TJ nearly as often as we would hope. Second, once they apply, the admissions test knocks many of them out of contention immediately. Third, it's an even worse picture for economically disadvantaged students. 

If you look at these numbers and think "Well, the Asian kids are just smarter," then we have different assumptions about the nature of race, so you can just move on. I have no reasoned response.

If you look at these numbers and think "Well, the Black and Hispanic kids are not as qualified (through no fault of their own), and letting more of them in will significantly dilute the academic strength of the TJ student body," then we can have a reasonable discussion (though I disagree with you). 

In a recent School Board working session, the Superintendent presented his TJ Admissions Merit Lottery Proposal, and I like it. For the first time, the admissions process can reflect the reality that many students could benefit from the rich experiences at TJ -- not just excellent test-takers. Most students who meet the new requirements (e.g., moving the minimum GPA up from 3.0 to 3.5) will be able to thrive at TJ. A few points: 

1. The current system does a great job of identifying great test takers, but there is more to academics than test taking. I actually don't care about creating a strict ordering of everyone who can take a test well. It's important that admitted students be qualified, but more than 500 students in Fairfax, Loudoun, Arlington, and the other participating districts are qualified to attend TJ. 
2. TJ teachers can figure out how to bring out excellence from students who took Algebra I in 7th or 8th grade and have a 3.5 GPA in their core middle school classes. Their classes will be SLIGHTLY less homogeneous, but not much. 
3. More Black and Hispanic students will apply than in recent years. I would guess that many students of color haven't particularly wanted to go to a school where they are culturally alone.
4. The TJ community will benefit from having more diverse perspectives and skill sets, while communities around Fairfax County will benefit from having connections to TJ. 
5. For the class of 2022, 2 middle schools combined to send 140 students to TJ (about 40% of the county's total), while 15 middle schools sent too few to report (small single digits).

The lack of diversity in TJ's student population has inspired hand wringing before. One question that struck me from this article was from an alumna who asked "Why are her white peers just noticing the problems now?" Honestly, I suspect that the declining representation for white students is a significant trigger. Nothing gets the attention of someone with privilege like being underrepresented. There are probably other reasons including the increased emphasis on equity in our society, but I'm a bit of a cynic.

Here are a few bold predictions:

• First of all, defenders of the status quo are going to lose their ever-loving minds. They will make impassioned pleas and defend the current system as the epitome of meritocracy.
• If this merit lottery ends up being enacted and the number of National Merit Finalists goes down, those defenders of the current status quo will freak out again and say "I told you so!" My response: I'm ok with that. When you rely on a test for admission, then it is no surprise that those students remain good test takers. I will not judge TJ based on how many exceptional test takers attend. That merit is judged primarily by a single test is ludicrous and narrow-minded. What is being rewarded with the current system is test preparation.
• Some families are going to move (or at least appear to move on paper) so their kids can have more favorable chances of selection. Any system can and will be gamed.
• Academic achievement will rise a bit at many middle and high schools. All of a sudden, kids from underrepresented areas of the county will realize that they have a chance of getting into TJ, and will work to become qualified for the lottery. 

I applaud Dr. Brabrand and the folks at FCPS who put together this innovative proposal. It will improve educational opportunities and outcomes across the county, and will make TJ a better place to learn.

Helping Your K-8 Kid Learn Math

As many school districts plan atypical scenarios for the Fall, many parents are asking a couple important questions:

1. If I want to homeschool, what curriculum should I use?
2. If my kid is still "in" school, but doing a ton of work independently, how can I help them?

Choosing a Math Curriculum

Actually, I wish more people would ask what curriculum they should use. Many intelligent people imagine that they can just do it themselves or buy a book off amazon and get it done. It's not that simple. Curriculum matters, but where should you turn?

In 2012, New York state commissioned the creation of a really great set of curricula for K-8 Math and English Language Arts (ELA). The result of that effort is EngageNY, which is generally considered some of the best open education resources (OER) out there. When that contract wound down, part of the team that created EngageNY decided that they were not done, so they created UnboundEd.

UnboundEd has updated and extended the EngageNY product to create solid content with good focus, rigor, and coherence. Oh, and it's free. They are also really great people who care deeply about equity and confronting our implicit biases. For proof, check out their Bias Toolkit. 

For another perspective for grades 6-8, check out Open Up Resources. Open Up is newer, and perhaps less robust, but they have some good stuff.

There are other options. EdReports.org has reviews of many curricula, so you can certainly poke around there. That said, you could do a whole lot worse than leaning heavily on UnboundEd and sprinkling in a few things from Open Up (grades 6-8) and/or the supplemental resources listed below.

Getting Math Help

What if you or your student gets stuck on some math topic? Note that this is a really different need (and set of solutions) from the curriculum focus above.

1. If you haven't checked Khan Academy, you haven't done a serious search. I would not use this as a curriculum, but the videos can help a learner get over a bump in the road, or can help a parent brush up on something they learned and forgot years ago.
2. BrainPop is another good source of videos. There are a ton of others, and you can find many at OER Commons.
3. Friends and family could help. Who do you know that is good at math? They are likely sitting at home, and would be happy to help and interact with someone new. Lean on your network!

Having the Right Mindset

Stop telling kids that they are bad or good at math. Carol Dweck and others have done and published a ton of research on this, but the core idea is that with VERY few exceptions, most people can become good/better at math if they put in the right effort. Instilling a static mindset by telling a kid s/he is good at math or bad at math takes away their agency. They need to know that effort is valuable and it can lead to getting better.

This isn't about participation trophies and orange slices. This is about rejecting the dysfunctional and wrong idea that our genetics have predetermined what we can be. This is about helping every student know that progress is important and within their control. Lifting weights doesn't inherently make you strong, but with the right program, effort, and persistence, a lifting program can help you build muscle. It's the same way with mental effort helping our math ability grow.

Opening Fairfax County Secondary Schools this Fall

Dear FCPS School Board and Leadership,

This Spring had its challenges. I'm not going to re-hash them, but want to praise the many teachers and administrators who still made effective learning happen for their students. I was impressed by and grateful for my daughter's devoted, talented, creative teachers.

Here are some thoughts about secondary schools as you plan to open FCPS this Fall:

1: Your Proven Online Solution: Use Fairfax's Online Campus to push many courses online that already have virtual versions. Perhaps the base experience for many classes could be shifted to the Online Campus course, with in-person instruction once/week (as long as health conditions allow) as well as weekly synchronous virtual class sessions (see below). FCPS has the content and infrastructure to make this work. Also note that leaning heavily on Online Campus will make it easier to pivot to all virtual learning if the health circumstances require it. 

2: Teacher Support: Teachers who will be blending virtual and in-person instruction need ...

• Content that is designed for virtual/blended delivery. Few teachers have the time or expertise to create the depth and breadth of digital content that they will need to pull this off well. 
• Tools for collaboration and for creating simple content (e.g., simple instructional videos).
• Training in blended and virtual technology and pedagogy. Facilitating a course that depends on technology requires comfort with technology, but also with new pedagogical strategies. 
• Time to plan and collaborate with their colleagues. For instance, there is no reason that each English 10 teacher in a given school should create their own videos. They should be able to share the burden and stay in sync. 

A few quotes from teachers:

"Asking teachers to reinvent the curriculum for online delivery is impossible and a fools errand...will...not...happen."

"... Teachers want to be prepared to help their students should virtual learning continue but we need help."

"Registration for the FCPS Academy course on online teaching opened at midnight on June 15th. The two sections filled in less than 4 minutes!! It’s summer break and hundreds of teachers are up at midnight to register for a course so they can learn how to teach online. By mid-morning over 100 were waitlisted,"

Without all of these supports, the system will struggle again, student learning will suffer, and FCPS will lose many talented, devoted, but frustrated teachers. 

3: A Blended Model: The scenarios presented so far seem to be either fully virtual or fully (in terms of synchronous teacher support) face-to-face. What about a blended solution? For instance what about using a variation of Scenario 2:

• Monday and Tuesday: Half of students in school each day with 8-period day. 
• Wednesday: Virtual periods 1-4 synchronous online
• Thursday: Virtual periods 5-8 synchronous online
• Friday: Intervention block

Some advantages of this blended approach are: 

• More structured time for students. None of the proposed scenarios have students learning synchronously more than two days/week. My suggestion pushes it to three.
• Less in-person contact time so that health risks are reduced.
• Easy to pivot to fully online if health conditions change for the district or for a particular school, teacher, or student. 

4: Reaching Out for Guidance: K12, Inc.'s headquarters is right here in Fairfax County, and they have been doing virtual learning for close to two decades. K12's 100,000+ students include lots of ELLs and IEPs and special education and F&RL. It could make sense to get their input as you frame up virtual and blended solutions, including how to provide counseling, engage with families, and deal effectively with populations that have specific needs. K12 is far from perfect, but they have been doing virtual and blended learning for a long time, so they can probably help FCPS avoid some pitfalls.

Reopening Higher Ed

As colleges and universities around the country weigh how they will reopen this Fall, various voices are being heard. Here are just two:

• Brown University's Christina Paxson in the New York Times: College Campuses Must Reopen in the Fall. Here’s How We Do It.
• USC-Beaufort's Deborah J. Cohan in Psychology Today: Pandemic U: What's the price of opening campuses in the fall?

What are some of the factors that schools are weighing (whether they admit them or not)?

Faculty and staff: Students are generally young and have few preexisting conditions. On the other hand, faculty and staff are older, and many have family members with significant risks. Bringing students back puts the faculty, staff, business owners, and all their families at risk. Honestly, this seems like an OSHA issue to me.

Revenue: When I originally looked at the university bill I paid in January, I just focused on the bottom line: How much am I writing a check for? Now, I look at every line and wonder: Will there be an athletic fee if the gym is closed? What about the meal plan? If everything were virtual, the bottom line would be VERY different. For me, all of those are distinct costs, but for the university, they are all important revenue streams.

The higher education value proposition: I'm not going to wade too far into the "is college worth it" debate, but I found this article by Susan Svrluga at the Washington Post particularly interesting: Is college worth it? A Georgetown study measures return on investment — with some surprising results. One thing this points out is that not all schools (even within a particular university) are equal financially. Most vocational schools such as law and business and engineering will survive this regardless. Those departments that can go virtual well probably should. But what about schools of liberal arts? What about those philosophy and religious studies and sociology departments? They are in a tougher spot. Faculty in these areas care about their health, but they also like having jobs. Honestly, this probably requires its own blog posts, but what if I just go with word association: community colleges, gap year, University of Phoenix, the humanities make us human.

Students without privilege: Many students are barely able to afford college. They scrape by thanks to on-campus jobs and scholarships and loans. This upheaval will make the college dream unattainable for many of these students. Without a job in the dining hall or at the athletic center, some students can't afford to live on campus. On the other hand, some students have home lives that aren't compatible with distance learning. Internet access, child care, loud siblings, space, and a plethora of other issues make virtual learning virtually impossible for many students. It's a lose-lose proposition for them.

College towns: There is no Blacksburg without Virginia Tech. What about Ann Arbor without the Univeristy of Michigan? Oberlin, OH? College Station, TX? State College, PA? You get the idea. Hechinger Report has Little-noticed victims of the higher education shutdowns: college towns

With students dispersed by the pandemic, towns that depend on them are struggling.

Students with privilege: First of all, I have put students last because they (as a population) are not particularly at risk, and they are resilient. If they all had to live at home and do this virtually, most of them would figure out how to do it well. That said, I'm sure my son is not alone in wanting very desperately to get back to campus (I'm trying not to be hurt). 

Let's be honest and admit that faculty and schools come at this from radically different perspectives. Faculty care about the health of their families, while schools are confronting an existential crisis. Many schools probably worry that going virtual will crush their bottom line, degrade the educational experience, and open themselves up to competition from challengers they never had to worry about before. 

So... what should schools do? 

1. No school or jurisdiction should open without a solid test-trace-isolate strategy. This May 15 article by Alex Tabarrok and Puja Ahluwalia Ohlhaver at The Washington Post: We could stop the pandemic by July 4 if the government took these steps lays out solid strategies.
2. Blended Learning: The importance of this is two-fold: Blending can help reduce class sizes (which improves safety), and can help prepare for going to more virtual strategies. 
3. Flexibility: How will you deal with a surge in cases on campus? How will you re-imagine your traditional gatherings? 

Should be interesting to see how this plays out.

The Ivy Testocracy and the Unfortunate Misuse of the SAT

Salon brings us an article by Lani Guinier Ivy League’s meritocracy lie: How Harvard and Yale cook the books for the 1 percent, which is an excerpt from her book The Tyranny of the Meritocracy: Democratizing Higher Education in America.

First of all, let me be clear: I have nothing against elite schools, but ....

Ahh, for the days when elite schools were filled with people who inherited their privilege. Back then, most students at elite schools knew they were fortunate to have been born into "good" families, while those who didn't get in could rest easy that they were simply less fortunate.

Now, those at elite schools believe they deserve their good fortune while those who don't get in think they are less deserving. It's really too bad on both sides. I'm not saying that people at elite schools aren't smart. I'm simply agreeing with Dr. Guinier that a student's socioeconomic status is an excellent predictor of their aptitude as measured by the SAT.

Guinier's article reminded me of something I read in Atlantic Quarterly back in the mid-90's, Nicholas Lemann's The Great Sorting. One quote from Lemann's article stands out to me:

"Broad-scale testing in America was intended to be two things at once: a system for selecting an elite and a way of providing universal opportunity.... An irony of the American meritocracy, now that it has been in operation long enough to produce not just future leaders but present ones, is that the leaders chosen by a mechanism designed to be perfectly open and fair are widely regarded as a pampered, out-of-touch, undemocratic in-group...."

Also, SAT scores are not a particularly good predictor of later success. As Guinier says,

"... college admissions officers at elite universities today ... when asked what predicts life success—[say] that, above a minimum level of competence, “initiative” or “hunger” are the best predictors."

Organizations such as schools and businesses are not looking for people with high IQs or great SAT scores. What they want are people who are driven. People with grit. The problem is that we don't know how to measure "grittiness" well. We're great at measuring IQ and "aptitude," but those traits are much less helpful.

Much of this criticism of the SAT is mirrored by Todd Balf's article in the New York Times Magazine, The Story Behind the SAT Overhaul, which uses much of the same information to explain why David Coleman is overhauling the SAT. I hope Coleman's work is effective at changing the dynamic between the SAT, colleges, and students of every stripe. We need to move away from this testocracy.