Does AAP committee know the race of the child applying? Or the make assumptions based on first/last

[Anonymous]

What teacher referral?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What teacher referral?

Teachers are encouraged to refer kids who they think belong in AAP when the parents do not refer the kids. My understanding is that this is more likely to occur at Title 1 and near Title 1 schools where parents tend to not know about AAP, or care much about AAP because they don’t understand the benefits of the program or education in general, or don’t speak English as a first language, and the like.

These are kids who are not in-pool but who the Teachers think are capable of handling AAP and would benefit from the challenge. I would guess that there are very few parents on this board whose kids were Teacher referred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's look at actual data. This is all from the AAP equity report and reflects the 2018 2nd grade cohort.

For AA kids, 26 were in Pool, 61 were Teacher referred, 179 were parent referred, and 154 of those got accepted to AAP
For Hispanic kids, 72 were in pool, 139 were teacher referred, 199 were parent referred, and 270 got in.
For White kids, 596 were in pool, 114 were teacher referred, 1044 were parent referred, 879 got in.
For Asian kids, 592 were in pool, 79 were teacher referred, 555 were parent referred, and 677 got in.


This means that for AA kids, while only 9.8% of the files evaluated had in pool scores, 57.9% of all AA files were found eligible. For Asian kids, 48.2% of the files evaluated had in pool scores, and yet only 55% of the files were found eligible. There was no real difference between the median GBRS scores of AAP eligible kids when broken down by race.

I don't necessarily disagree with giving a leg up to URMs in AAP admissions. If you look at the data, though, it's ludicrous to imagine that the process is race blind.

I mean, maybe they're also looking at other factors that are correlated to race, like FARMS or ESOL, and using those as favorable criteria? If a kid has that disadvantaged status but still manages to have a comparable profile, makes sense to give them the nod, which means race groups that have a higher percentage of FARMS/ESOL are also going to have higher eligibility/acceptance rates. If the argument is that they should only be considering factors that don't correlate with race else the process isn't "race blind", then yes, I suppose that true but seems an absurd standard since almost everything correlates with race to some degree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's look at actual data. This is all from the AAP equity report and reflects the 2018 2nd grade cohort.

For AA kids, 26 were in Pool, 61 were Teacher referred, 179 were parent referred, and 154 of those got accepted to AAP
For Hispanic kids, 72 were in pool, 139 were teacher referred, 199 were parent referred, and 270 got in.
For White kids, 596 were in pool, 114 were teacher referred, 1044 were parent referred, 879 got in.
For Asian kids, 592 were in pool, 79 were teacher referred, 555 were parent referred, and 677 got in.


This means that for AA kids, while only 9.8% of the files evaluated had in pool scores, 57.9% of all AA files were found eligible. For Asian kids, 48.2% of the files evaluated had in pool scores, and yet only 55% of the files were found eligible. There was no real difference between the median GBRS scores of AAP eligible kids when broken down by race.

I don't necessarily disagree with giving a leg up to URMs in AAP admissions. If you look at the data, though, it's ludicrous to imagine that the process is race blind.

I mean, maybe they're also looking at other factors that are correlated to race, like FARMS or ESOL, and using those as favorable criteria? If a kid has that disadvantaged status but still manages to have a comparable profile, makes sense to give them the nod, which means race groups that have a higher percentage of FARMS/ESOL are also going to have higher eligibility/acceptance rates. If the argument is that they should only be considering factors that don't correlate with race else the process isn't "race blind", then yes, I suppose that true but seems an absurd standard since almost everything correlates with race to some degree.

FARMS or ESOL status aren't a clear indication of race. Admiossions are race blind, but don't let that stop you from inventining conspiracy theories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's look at actual data. This is all from the AAP equity report and reflects the 2018 2nd grade cohort.

For AA kids, 26 were in Pool, 61 were Teacher referred, 179 were parent referred, and 154 of those got accepted to AAP
For Hispanic kids, 72 were in pool, 139 were teacher referred, 199 were parent referred, and 270 got in.
For White kids, 596 were in pool, 114 were teacher referred, 1044 were parent referred, 879 got in.
For Asian kids, 592 were in pool, 79 were teacher referred, 555 were parent referred, and 677 got in.


This means that for AA kids, while only 9.8% of the files evaluated had in pool scores, 57.9% of all AA files were found eligible. For Asian kids, 48.2% of the files evaluated had in pool scores, and yet only 55% of the files were found eligible. There was no real difference between the median GBRS scores of AAP eligible kids when broken down by race.

I don't necessarily disagree with giving a leg up to URMs in AAP admissions. If you look at the data, though, it's ludicrous to imagine that the process is race blind.

I mean, maybe they're also looking at other factors that are correlated to race, like FARMS or ESOL, and using those as favorable criteria? If a kid has that disadvantaged status but still manages to have a comparable profile, makes sense to give them the nod, which means race groups that have a higher percentage of FARMS/ESOL are also going to have higher eligibility/acceptance rates. If the argument is that they should only be considering factors that don't correlate with race else the process isn't "race blind", then yes, I suppose that true but seems an absurd standard since almost everything correlates with race to some degree.

FARMS or ESOL status aren't a clear indication of race. Admiossions are race blind, but don't let that stop you from inventining conspiracy theories.

Evidence for the bolded? The statistics in the AAP equity report pretty strongly disagree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's look at actual data. This is all from the AAP equity report and reflects the 2018 2nd grade cohort.

For AA kids, 26 were in Pool, 61 were Teacher referred, 179 were parent referred, and 154 of those got accepted to AAP
For Hispanic kids, 72 were in pool, 139 were teacher referred, 199 were parent referred, and 270 got in.
For White kids, 596 were in pool, 114 were teacher referred, 1044 were parent referred, 879 got in.
For Asian kids, 592 were in pool, 79 were teacher referred, 555 were parent referred, and 677 got in.


This means that for AA kids, while only 9.8% of the files evaluated had in pool scores, 57.9% of all AA files were found eligible. For Asian kids, 48.2% of the files evaluated had in pool scores, and yet only 55% of the files were found eligible. There was no real difference between the median GBRS scores of AAP eligible kids when broken down by race.

I don't necessarily disagree with giving a leg up to URMs in AAP admissions. If you look at the data, though, it's ludicrous to imagine that the process is race blind.

I mean, maybe they're also looking at other factors that are correlated to race, like FARMS or ESOL, and using those as favorable criteria? If a kid has that disadvantaged status but still manages to have a comparable profile, makes sense to give them the nod, which means race groups that have a higher percentage of FARMS/ESOL are also going to have higher eligibility/acceptance rates. If the argument is that they should only be considering factors that don't correlate with race else the process isn't "race blind", then yes, I suppose that true but seems an absurd standard since almost everything correlates with race to some degree.

FARMS or ESOL status aren't a clear indication of race. Admiossions are race blind, but don't let that stop you from inventining conspiracy theories.

Evidence for the bolded? The statistics in the AAP equity report pretty strongly disagree with you.

Not really, your are free to interpret them as you will but they do not indicate that they are including race as a factor. If they are making determinations based on schools, then the schools with lower scores are more likely to be Title 1 schools with more AA and Hispanic kids. And then there is the Teacher referral bit.

But you conspiracy the way that you want to.

[Anonymous]

Ah. So you have absolutely no evidence that the AAP selection is race blind. FCPS has never claimed that the process is race blind. Race is listed in the packet. But since you say it's race blind, it obviously must be so.

[Anonymous]

It is not race blind. Race is listed on the first page of the packet.