Equity report recommendations on GBRS

[Anonymous]

I just read this is the 2020 AAP equity report recommendations:

“ Reconsideration of use of the GBRS. There is currently very little, if any, evidence that the GBRS is a valid and reliable assessment tool for identifying advanced learners. It is currently a major factor in AAP service eligibility, despite very limited psychometric foundations.”

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BPLQKV69B096/$file/FCPS%20final%20report%2005.05.20.pdf

Are they implementing this recommendation?

[Anonymous]

Nope.

[Anonymous]

Right above it, the report also says the the NNAT should be discontinued. Love that. Fewer prepping opportunities for parents.

[Anonymous]

TBH, the equity people came across as a bit clueless. And contradictory.

[Anonymous]

Random lottery, and call it a day

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:TBH, the equity people came across as a bit clueless. And contradictory.

A lot of the recommendations have been or are in the process of being implemented. Local norms, more LLV programs; WISC seems to matter less; NNAT has been deemed nearly moot at this point. But GBRS recommendation appears to have fallen on deaf ears. It strikes me as odd that such an objectively flawed metric would count for so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TBH, the equity people came across as a bit clueless. And contradictory.

A lot of the recommendations have been or are in the process of being implemented. Local norms, more LLV programs; WISC seems to matter less; NNAT has been deemed nearly moot at this point. But GBRS recommendation appears to have fallen on deaf ears. It strikes me as odd that such an objectively flawed metric would count for so much.

Because it is a subjective criterion they can use how ever they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TBH, the equity people came across as a bit clueless. And contradictory.

A lot of the recommendations have been or are in the process of being implemented. Local norms, more LLV programs; WISC seems to matter less; NNAT has been deemed nearly moot at this point. But GBRS recommendation appears to have fallen on deaf ears. It strikes me as odd that such an objectively flawed metric would count for so much.

Because they are looking for a way to see what kids in the class seem to want to be learning and who are curious and engaged.

Honestly, I think the language immersion programs work because parents who are interested in their kids education tend to put their kids in the programs. I know parents who know that LI wouldn’t work for their kid in K or 1 because of where the kids was in their learning or ability to focus who choose not to put their kid in LI. But that is why the program works, parents who know their kid and think their kid can handle the challenge put their kid in LI. Teachers can counsel parents to remove a kid because they are struggling with math or science, since that is taught in the new language, or in the language. Most parents listen to the Teachers on that.

LIV could probably work in the same way. Just make it local and let parents choose to put their kid in or not. Teach to the curriculum as written and kids who are struggling can be moved to the other class with parents consent.

Parents tend to have a good grasp of their kids abilities and most want their kid to succeed. If you send home progress reports and report cards with lots of 1s and 2s then most parents will be up to moving their kid. If a kid is getting solid 4s in Gen Ed and the Teacher thinks they can handle LIV, have a chat with the parents.

Remove the application process and make it seem less special and some of the craziness goes away. And we can save money on the NNAT, CogAT, and time spent building and reviewing packets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TBH, the equity people came across as a bit clueless. And contradictory.

A lot of the recommendations have been or are in the process of being implemented. Local norms, more LLV programs; WISC seems to matter less; NNAT has been deemed nearly moot at this point. But GBRS recommendation appears to have fallen on deaf ears. It strikes me as odd that such an objectively flawed metric would count for so much.

Because they are looking for a way to see what kids in the class seem to want to be learning and who are curious and engaged.

Honestly, I think the language immersion programs work because parents who are interested in their kids education tend to put their kids in the programs. I know parents who know that LI wouldn’t work for their kid in K or 1 because of where the kids was in their learning or ability to focus who choose not to put their kid in LI. But that is why the program works, parents who know their kid and think their kid can handle the challenge put their kid in LI. Teachers can counsel parents to remove a kid because they are struggling with math or science, since that is taught in the new language, or in the language. Most parents listen to the Teachers on that.

LIV could probably work in the same way. Just make it local and let parents choose to put their kid in or not. Teach to the curriculum as written and kids who are struggling can be moved to the other class with parents consent.

Parents tend to have a good grasp of their kids abilities and most want their kid to succeed. If you send home progress reports and report cards with lots of 1s and 2s then most parents will be up to moving their kid. If a kid is getting solid 4s in Gen Ed and the Teacher thinks they can handle LIV, have a chat with the parents.

Remove the application process and make it seem less special and some of the craziness goes away. And we can save money on the NNAT, CogAT, and time spent building and reviewing packets.

This is a naive statement. And wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TBH, the equity people came across as a bit clueless. And contradictory.

A lot of the recommendations have been or are in the process of being implemented. Local norms, more LLV programs; WISC seems to matter less; NNAT has been deemed nearly moot at this point. But GBRS recommendation appears to have fallen on deaf ears. It strikes me as odd that such an objectively flawed metric would count for so much.

The thing is, the equity report says that gifted programs have value and then gives recommendations on how to make something that is not a gifted program. And FCPS, which in the administration has a love-hate relationship with AAP, was eager to implement as many of the recommendations as possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TBH, the equity people came across as a bit clueless. And contradictory.

A lot of the recommendations have been or are in the process of being implemented. Local norms, more LLV programs; WISC seems to matter less; NNAT has been deemed nearly moot at this point. But GBRS recommendation appears to have fallen on deaf ears. It strikes me as odd that such an objectively flawed metric would count for so much.

Because they are looking for a way to see what kids in the class seem to want to be learning and who are curious and engaged.

Honestly, I think the language immersion programs work because parents who are interested in their kids education tend to put their kids in the programs. I know parents who know that LI wouldn’t work for their kid in K or 1 because of where the kids was in their learning or ability to focus who choose not to put their kid in LI. But that is why the program works, parents who know their kid and think their kid can handle the challenge put their kid in LI. Teachers can counsel parents to remove a kid because they are struggling with math or science, since that is taught in the new language, or in the language. Most parents listen to the Teachers on that.

LIV could probably work in the same way. Just make it local and let parents choose to put their kid in or not. Teach to the curriculum as written and kids who are struggling can be moved to the other class with parents consent.

Parents tend to have a good grasp of their kids abilities and most want their kid to succeed. If you send home progress reports and report cards with lots of 1s and 2s then most parents will be up to moving their kid. If a kid is getting solid 4s in Gen Ed and the Teacher thinks they can handle LIV, have a chat with the parents.

Remove the application process and make it seem less special and some of the craziness goes away. And we can save money on the NNAT, CogAT, and time spent building and reviewing packets.

This is a naive statement. And wrong.

Agree. I had a parent ask about Adv math and their kid got 30 percent on IReady. I have had kids prepping for IAAT who I already know won’t get into algebra based off how they are doing. Many parents are in denial about how their kid is performing in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just read this is the 2020 AAP equity report recommendations:

“ Reconsideration of use of the GBRS. There is currently very little, if any, evidence that the GBRS is a valid and reliable assessment tool for identifying advanced learners. It is currently a major factor in AAP service eligibility, despite very limited psychometric foundations.”

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BPLQKV69B096/$file/FCPS%20final%20report%2005.05.20.pdf

Are they implementing this recommendation?

Evidence suggests it's an excellent way to filter out the less desirable applicants, even if it has no academic value.

[Anonymous]

There are always going to be parents who are looking to place their kids in tougher courses then they belong in but the majority of parents get it right or listen to Teacher feedback. We are in an LI program and have watched as the class has shrunk. we know a good number of the kids left for the Gen Ed program because something about the LI program was not working for them. The class has shrunk by 1/3 and only a handful have been due to moves or leaving for the Center.

I get that there are the cluesless parents who think a kid with a 30% on the iReady might belong in Advanced Math but I would suggest that that parent is an outlier. I would also guess that the parents who are focused on AAP as a status thing would be more likely to place their kid in LLIV. If the program becomes less about status and more about a regular placement, the status issue diminishes and more parents will make better, informed choices.

And yes, I could be naive, but it seems to work at our school with LI. I suspect that it works because people don't see it as being a big deal to be in LI vs Gen Ed. I occasionally hear some parents say that Gen Ed is seen as lesser but they are focused on the fact that there are Cultural events based on the language at the school that they think single out the Gen Ed kids. The events are open to everyone and are held in English but there are language components and cultural components that are taught as part of the LI program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just read this is the 2020 AAP equity report recommendations:

“ Reconsideration of use of the GBRS. There is currently very little, if any, evidence that the GBRS is a valid and reliable assessment tool for identifying advanced learners. It is currently a major factor in AAP service eligibility, despite very limited psychometric foundations.”

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BPLQKV69B096/$file/FCPS%20final%20report%2005.05.20.pdf

Are they implementing this recommendation?

Evidence suggests it's an excellent way to filter out the less desirable applicants, even if it has no academic value.

There's no evidence. Stop with the trolling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are always going to be parents who are looking to place their kids in tougher courses then they belong in but the majority of parents get it right or listen to Teacher feedback. We are in an LI program and have watched as the class has shrunk. we know a good number of the kids left for the Gen Ed program because something about the LI program was not working for them. The class has shrunk by 1/3 and only a handful have been due to moves or leaving for the Center.

I get that there are the cluesless parents who think a kid with a 30% on the iReady might belong in Advanced Math but I would suggest that that parent is an outlier. I would also guess that the parents who are focused on AAP as a status thing would be more likely to place their kid in LLIV. If the program becomes less about status and more about a regular placement, the status issue diminishes and more parents will make better, informed choices.

And yes, I could be naive, but it seems to work at our school with LI. I suspect that it works because people don't see it as being a big deal to be in LI vs Gen Ed. I occasionally hear some parents say that Gen Ed is seen as lesser but they are focused on the fact that there are Cultural events based on the language at the school that they think single out the Gen Ed kids. The events are open to everyone and are held in English but there are language components and cultural components that are taught as part of the LI program.

No. Parents overestimate and underestimate their kids. That's why the admissions process exists, because parents are the wrong judge of their child's academic capabilities.