Is AAP race blind? Are there quotas?

[Anonymous]

Why would they have an ESOL teacher on the panel? If they're not using people who have training in gifted ed and who have a strong understanding of the program, how can any of it be accurate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is the problem right here. Just like with college admission there is too much subjective bs in all of this

No one should be getting in without being in pool. That should be it if you are in pool in, not in pool out period done end of story. No appeals

Appeals are required by law, it's not up to the school system.

Also, WISCs are much more accurate than CogAT and NNAT. WISCs will often capture 2E kids who are missed by the school tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Board has been clear they take race into consideration.

It's on the front page of the application as is address school name and languages spoken.

They have goals to admit certain percentages and have discussed it in public meetings.

OMG. Do you even know who “the board” is? It’s 200 teachers that volunteer and get a sub day and spend the whole day at Willow Oaks reading packets. They rotate through over the course of 5 days. I’m an ESOL teacher and I’ve done it every year for 5 years. We aren’t specially trained and we look at the whole package and not just those test scores. We also are told to disregard parent work submitted because it’s often done by them or with a lot of help. We never look at the identifying info. Honestly after reading several hundred, no one cares if it’s a boy or girl, age, grade, etc. it’s draining. You can surmise all you want about the system but I’m here to tell you it’s a complete crapshoot. It has to get 4 yes or 4 no to be completed. Sometimes 3 people say yes, one says no, and then it goes to another reader. It’s a botched system. After completing the packet, your best chance it just to pray. All depends on who reads it and if they are feeling the love. There are also no limited spots (the only time that may come into play is during appeals since classes have been formed by then). Basically, have good scores and make sure the teacher likes your kid for good GBRS. Other than that pray and wait. 🙄

Wow... That's horrifying on so many levels. I think we were all under the impression that it was mostly AARTs and AAP teachers, and not just any random teacher. Before appeals, then, they already know which centers are over capacity and which have room. I bet the kids getting rejected with the high WISC scores are zoned to centers that are over-capacity, and they never had a chance of getting in on appeals.

I agree, it means that it all hinges on a shallow assessment of the "sincerity" of the packet, which as much as we wish it wasn't, is something that is subject to predispositions based on race. Someone can not care about race while still being subconsciously influenced by it (I mean, that's the whole explanation of systemic bias after all).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
White kids had parents pay for WISC test scores.

I don't understand this. Do you suggest that parents are paying for taking the test or that they are paying a licenced psychologist to provide a false evaluation?
It is true that you have to pay around $360 as a test fee to GMU, but it doesn't mean that they will provide a false evaluation. If you suggest that a licenced psychologist provides a false evaluation (btw they would lose their licence if they do that), then you could just as well claim "parents with connections will find the FCPS committee members and pay them to put their non-pool kid into LIV". This is ridiculous...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow... That's horrifying on so many levels. I think we were all under the impression that it was mostly AARTs and AAP teachers, and not just any random teacher. Before appeals, then, they already know which centers are over capacity and which have room. I bet the kids getting rejected with the high WISC scores are zoned to centers that are over-capacity, and they never had a chance of getting in on appeals.

I agree, it means that it all hinges on a shallow assessment of the "sincerity" of the packet, which as much as we wish it wasn't, is something that is subject to predispositions based on race. Someone can not care about race while still being subconsciously influenced by it (I mean, that's the whole explanation of systemic bias after all).

The AART at my school emphasized that if you come across as arrogant or presumptuous, or if you use language indicating that your child is bored, or you think your child is too good for gen ed, they will look for reasons to reject you. Likewise, the AART said that you should include any cute anecdotes or even a letter from grandma, because any of those things might resonate with the committee members reviewing your child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OMG. Do you even know who “the board” is? It’s 200 teachers that volunteer and get a sub day and spend the whole day at Willow Oaks reading packets. They rotate through over the course of 5 days. I’m an ESOL teacher and I’ve done it every year for 5 years. We aren’t specially trained and we look at the whole package and not just those test scores. We also are told to disregard parent work submitted because it’s often done by them or with a lot of help. We never look at the identifying info. Honestly after reading several hundred, no one cares if it’s a boy or girl, age, grade, etc. it’s draining. You can surmise all you want about the system but I’m here to tell you it’s a complete crapshoot. It has to get 4 yes or 4 no to be completed. Sometimes 3 people say yes, one says no, and then it goes to another reader. It’s a botched system. After completing the packet, your best chance it just to pray. All depends on who reads it and if they are feeling the love. There are also no limited spots (the only time that may come into play is during appeals since classes have been formed by then). Basically, have good scores and make sure the teacher likes your kid for good GBRS. Other than that pray and wait. 🙄

If this is true, then the school work samples are probably the single most important thing. Untrained people are unlikely to appreciate the significance of test scores or gifted traits. The main thing that will leap out at them is neatly done work samples with nice handwriting, good spelling, and pretty artwork. Sloppy work is likely to stick out in a negative way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
White kids had parents pay for WISC test scores.

I don't understand this. Do you suggest that parents are paying for taking the test or that they are paying a licenced psychologist to provide a false evaluation?
It is true that you have to pay around $360 as a test fee to GMU, but it doesn't mean that they will provide a false evaluation. If you suggest that a licenced psychologist provides a false evaluation (btw they would lose their licence if they do that), then you could just as well claim "parents with connections will find the FCPS committee members and pay them to put their non-pool kid into LIV". This is ridiculous...

NP. I think the point there was that white parents have the means to pay and time/flexibility to take their kids to get an extra evaluation that others may not have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG. Do you even know who “the board” is? It’s 200 teachers that volunteer and get a sub day and spend the whole day at Willow Oaks reading packets. They rotate through over the course of 5 days. I’m an ESOL teacher and I’ve done it every year for 5 years. We aren’t specially trained and we look at the whole package and not just those test scores. We also are told to disregard parent work submitted because it’s often done by them or with a lot of help. We never look at the identifying info. Honestly after reading several hundred, no one cares if it’s a boy or girl, age, grade, etc. it’s draining. You can surmise all you want about the system but I’m here to tell you it’s a complete crapshoot. It has to get 4 yes or 4 no to be completed. Sometimes 3 people say yes, one says no, and then it goes to another reader. It’s a botched system. After completing the packet, your best chance it just to pray. All depends on who reads it and if they are feeling the love. There are also no limited spots (the only time that may come into play is during appeals since classes have been formed by then). Basically, have good scores and make sure the teacher likes your kid for good GBRS. Other than that pray and wait. 🙄

If this is true, then the school work samples are probably the single most important thing. Untrained people are unlikely to appreciate the significance of test scores or gifted traits. The main thing that will leap out at them is neatly done work samples with nice handwriting, good spelling, and pretty artwork. Sloppy work is likely to stick out in a negative way.

The teachers are trained to understand what a good work sample is. They want to see critical thinking and creative thinking, not just advanced work. I will say I do think it is easier to get in after second grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The teachers are trained to understand what a good work sample is. They want to see critical thinking and creative thinking, not just advanced work. I will say I do think it is easier to get in after second grade.

Is it easier? Some centers are already going to be at capacity for that grade, so they aren't going to want to admit a bunch more students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG. Do you even know who “the board” is? It’s 200 teachers that volunteer and get a sub day and spend the whole day at Willow Oaks reading packets. They rotate through over the course of 5 days. I’m an ESOL teacher and I’ve done it every year for 5 years. We aren’t specially trained and we look at the whole package and not just those test scores. We also are told to disregard parent work submitted because it’s often done by them or with a lot of help. We never look at the identifying info. Honestly after reading several hundred, no one cares if it’s a boy or girl, age, grade, etc. it’s draining. You can surmise all you want about the system but I’m here to tell you it’s a complete crapshoot. It has to get 4 yes or 4 no to be completed. Sometimes 3 people say yes, one says no, and then it goes to another reader. It’s a botched system. After completing the packet, your best chance it just to pray. All depends on who reads it and if they are feeling the love. There are also no limited spots (the only time that may come into play is during appeals since classes have been formed by then). Basically, have good scores and make sure the teacher likes your kid for good GBRS. Other than that pray and wait. 🙄

If this is true, then the school work samples are probably the single most important thing. Untrained people are unlikely to appreciate the significance of test scores or gifted traits. The main thing that will leap out at them is neatly done work samples with nice handwriting, good spelling, and pretty artwork. Sloppy work is likely to stick out in a negative way.

What happens to the packages after the 4 'yes' marks? What happens if only a handful of Hispanic or African American students get a 4? What happens if a center school ends up with 2 additional classes because of the reviewers marked too many applicants for 'yes'? The above seems unreasonable given all the ways that it can go wrong and not work out. What the ESOL teacher is probably not aware of is what happens after the packages leave her lap. Like in most other competitive admissions processes, there is probably an executive committee that meets to massage the number of entrants into the program in terms of race, capacity and other factors whether it be for the better or worse for any given individual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The teachers are trained to understand what a good work sample is. They want to see critical thinking and creative thinking, not just advanced work. I will say I do think it is easier to get in after second grade.

Is it easier? Some centers are already going to be at capacity for that grade, so they aren't going to want to admit a bunch more students.

There are no quotas for centers. That is why when kids get in they need to let the school know if they will be staying at base or going to center. They then use the staffing formula to see if another teacher is needed. That is why some grades might have 5 teachers and another grade might have 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The teachers are trained to understand what a good work sample is. They want to see critical thinking and creative thinking, not just advanced work. I will say I do think it is easier to get in after second grade.

Is it easier? Some centers are already going to be at capacity for that grade, so they aren't going to want to admit a bunch more students.

At my LL4 school there are at least 4-5 kids in each grade who get accepted. So let’s say there are 12 L4 kids in 3rd. There will prob be close to 17 by 6th grade.

[Anonymous]

. Stahp with the "at capacity" schtick. There are no limits on how many kids can get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:. Stahp with the "at capacity" schtick. There are no limits on how many kids can get in.

Omg. Of course there is a capacity! Where on earth is space coming for the unlimited capacity? Are buildings falling out of the sky? Where do you think principal placements come from? Where there is EXTRA space for more students! My school principal specifically said that center schools are filled to full capacity! My school has 75 kids every year. Are there coincidentally only 75 eligible kids every year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:. Stahp with the "at capacity" schtick. There are no limits on how many kids can get in.

Omg. Of course there is a capacity! Where on earth is space coming for the unlimited capacity? Are buildings falling out of the sky? Where do you think principal placements come from? Where there is EXTRA space for more students! My school principal specifically said that center schools are filled to full capacity! My school has 75 kids every year. Are there coincidentally only 75 eligible kids every year?

Right on! It’s BS that there is no limit. Every school has physical space constraints, not to mention resource constraints. It’s a bunch of BS to be saying otherwise. As someone astutely raised on the other thread about this, if there was no limit, FCPS could easily streamline the entire admissions process by putting out minimum thresholds over which everyone was “in”. It would sure solve a lot of problems. But there’s a reason why they have to review thousands of applicants a year. Think about it!