AAP Equity report

[Anonymous]

Our Title 1 school was 60% Farms. We left for the center. My older child was already there so I knew that the differences in education and expectations between the schools were great.

[Anonymous]

Are you arguing that it's illegal for schools to group the above average kids together, so instead schools should label the above average kids as gifted and have them attend an entirely different school? How does that make sense, and how is that not a worse violation of federal law?

I'm beginning to agree with the authors of the study that parent referrals, appeals, and any parental contributions to the packet need to go. AAP shouldn't be used as a tool by privileged, somewhat above average kids to flee from the poor kids.

[Anonymous]

Currently, it appears that FCPS is putting forth significant effort to increase the Level IV
eligibility rate of African American and Hispanic student, but the achievement gaps between groups
is so large that this effort is still not enough to make the Level IV population reflective of the overall
student population.

progressives won't rest until AAP and TJ look like the Fairfax Population. Talent and aptitude be damned equality for all everyone must be equally average

[Anonymous]

Poor kids deserve an opportunity to develop to their full potential just like more privileged kids, but that’s difficult to do when stuck in a classroom that moves at a snail’s pace. If a bright student has never been exposed to more advanced material, he/she will score lower on achievement tests like the CogAT than similar students from wealthier schools.

Fairfax should implement school-based norms (i.e. top 10% at each school is in-pool) as recommended in the report and develop a local level IV program at every ES, which would address this issue. And yes, parent referrals should be eliminated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Poor kids deserve an opportunity to develop to their full potential just like more privileged kids, but that’s difficult to do when stuck in a classroom that moves at a snail’s pace. If a bright student has never been exposed to more advanced material, he/she will score lower on achievement tests like the CogAT than similar students from wealthier schools.

Fairfax should implement school-based norms (i.e. top 10% at each school is in-pool) as recommended in the report and develop a local level IV program at every ES, which would address this issue. And yes, parent referrals should be eliminated.

Stupid idea. This is what they did in Texas for equality. I taught at UT Austin and have never had such disparate student abilities in any other school. Literal geniuses on one end of the class and on the other end a poor hispanic kid that honestly shouldn't be in college at all and can barely write a sentence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poor kids deserve an opportunity to develop to their full potential just like more privileged kids, but that’s difficult to do when stuck in a classroom that moves at a snail’s pace. If a bright student has never been exposed to more advanced material, he/she will score lower on achievement tests like the CogAT than similar students from wealthier schools.

Fairfax should implement school-based norms (i.e. top 10% at each school is in-pool) as recommended in the report and develop a local level IV program at every ES, which would address this issue. And yes, parent referrals should be eliminated.

Stupid idea. This is what they did in Texas for equality. I taught at UT Austin and have never had such disparate student abilities in any other school. Literal geniuses on one end of the class and on the other end a poor hispanic kid that honestly shouldn't be in college at all and can barely write a sentence.

To clarify, I don't mean for AAP, I mean top 10% of every high school is admitted to college. Sorry but some high schools should have 0% admitted.

[Anonymous]

AAP should be identifying kids who need acceleration who aren't getting their needs met in their base school

In Montgomery County they changed the formula for middle school magnet admissions

If you are in a lower income/crappy school the cutoffs are lower but still high where say only 5% of the population is identified

If you are in a higher income/better school almost no one made the program because there is already a high performing cohort at the base school

I actually agree with this thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AAP should be identifying kids who need acceleration who aren't getting their needs met in their base school

In Montgomery County they changed the formula for middle school magnet admissions

If you are in a lower income/crappy school the cutoffs are lower but still high where say only 5% of the population is identified

If you are in a higher income/better school almost no one made the program because there is already a high performing cohort at the base school

I actually agree with this thoughts?

The one downside is by taking away the shining stars at the lower income schools the environment becomes that much tougher for the kids that are left, harder to staff, etc

On the other hand that's where FARMS funding is and these schools should be experts about getting kids multiple grade levels behind back to grade level and adjusting curriculum appropriately. Things like intensive focus on basic skills longer math and reading blocks etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poor kids deserve an opportunity to develop to their full potential just like more privileged kids, but that’s difficult to do when stuck in a classroom that moves at a snail’s pace. If a bright student has never been exposed to more advanced material, he/she will score lower on achievement tests like the CogAT than similar students from wealthier schools.

Fairfax should implement school-based norms (i.e. top 10% at each school is in-pool) as recommended in the report and develop a local level IV program at every ES, which would address this issue. And yes, parent referrals should be eliminated.

Stupid idea. This is what they did in Texas for equality. I taught at UT Austin and have never had such disparate student abilities in any other school. Literal geniuses on one end of the class and on the other end a poor hispanic kid that honestly shouldn't be in college at all and can barely write a sentence.

That's not a good comparison. Talent development for 8 year olds is hardly the same as a college program that needs to maintain certain standards. Also, I doubt that any school in FCPS is so lacking in talent that the top 10% wouldn't be college worthy or bright/advanced. If FCPS were to take the top 10% from each school, maybe a few schools that under-identify would end up with more of their bright kids receiving services, and the wealthier schools that label a large percentage of their kids as AAP would have fewer above average, privileged white and Asian kids get in. Seems win-win to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There was a lot of double speak. Like, they said it was good that FCPS used multiple factors and not just test scores, but then went on to say that GBRS is not a psychometrically vetted measure and thus is very arbitrary. Since it is the primary measure for finding kids eligible, this is problematic.

They showed that white people take full advantage of parent referrals.

When adjusted for test scores, an AA kid is more than 5 times more likely to be selected than a white or Asian kid with the same stats.

While URMs are still underrepresented, their representation is increasing.

People strongly supported front end services like a robust Young Scholars program to address the achievement gap

The people who created the report want to get rid of NNAT since it doesn't give them any info not already provided by CogAT NV, but it still costs a lot.

They wanted a real, vetted measure used in place of GBRS.

They want to get rid of parent referrals, parental submission of materials into the packet, and substantially reduce appeals, but they also want the in-pool benchmark reduced. The reason for this is that URMs and lower income kids are less likely to take advantage of parent referrals, parent supplied packet materials, and appeals.

They want stronger LI, LII, and LIII

They want full time AARTs at every school, and maybe extra AART support at Title I schools. They found part time AARTs pretty useless.

They also suggested using school-wide norms rather than county wide ones. Like, the top whatever percent of kids in each school would be in AAP.

The lowest kids getting accepted had CogAT scores around 90, which is well below average. The mean scores were around a 119 CogAT V, a 126 Q, and a 124 NV. Mean NNAT was lower than that, I think.

AAP teachers have complained that the range of learners is too broad, and that they will have kids who are below grade level in the same class as kids who get perfect scores on CogAT.

The goals of AAP are unclear on a county wide level.

That's the rough summary.

A lot of the recommendations didn't make sense to me.

They found clear inequity in the parent referral process, yet didn't recommend it be eliminated.

They found most kids are in there by parent placement and not actual test scores (which we knew), but didn't suggest maybe that means most of the kids in level IV the program is much larger than it actually needs to be in order so serve actual gifted (versus privileged) students.

They provided no justification at all for the finding that AARTs are valuable and should be increased, and did not examine the degree to which AARTs (overwhelmingly white women) contribute to the success of inequitable parent referrals.

They seemed to rely heavily on what teachers and parents said for findings such as "the program is valuable" and not on actual data. And it wasn't clear what parents and teachers they actually asked (was it only AAP parents and AAP teachers or classroom teachers? Were specialists and non-AAP parents asked?).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AAP should be identifying kids who need acceleration who aren't getting their needs met in their base school

In Montgomery County they changed the formula for middle school magnet admissions

If you are in a lower income/crappy school the cutoffs are lower but still high where say only 5% of the population is identified

If you are in a higher income/better school almost no one made the program because there is already a high performing cohort at the base school

I actually agree with this thoughts?

This makes a lot of sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poor kids deserve an opportunity to develop to their full potential just like more privileged kids, but that’s difficult to do when stuck in a classroom that moves at a snail’s pace. If a bright student has never been exposed to more advanced material, he/she will score lower on achievement tests like the CogAT than similar students from wealthier schools.

Fairfax should implement school-based norms (i.e. top 10% at each school is in-pool) as recommended in the report and develop a local level IV program at every ES, which would address this issue. And yes, parent referrals should be eliminated.

Stupid idea. This is what they did in Texas for equality. I taught at UT Austin and have never had such disparate student abilities in any other school. Literal geniuses on one end of the class and on the other end a poor hispanic kid that honestly shouldn't be in college at all and can barely write a sentence.

To clarify, I don't mean for AAP, I mean top 10% of every high school is admitted to college. Sorry but some high schools should have 0% admitted.

No one here is discussing college but how to improve AAP.

If Elementary Schools have their own Level IV program and the top 10% of the kids at the school are in pool consideration it will benefit those kids greatly. Instead of being dispersed across the 3-5 classrooms, there would be a cohort of kids who are capable of working on more advanced material then they were seeing in the Gen Ed classroom. Those kids would hopefully be able to close the gap with the kids from UMC families at other schools. That could help more URM successfully apply and attend TJ or participate in AP/IB classes when they get to high school.

More robust Level III programs that meet weekly and Advanced Math that starts in third grade at all schools would reduce some of the pressure to get every child who is strong in Language Arts or Math, but grade level in the other area, to be enrolled in AAP because parents know that their child will be able to shore up their weaker area and still have access to advanced material in the child's stronger area.

The reality is that there is a need for special services for kids who are struggling, through resource support or separate classes, and for kids who are more advanced in their learning. Both ends of the bell curve need to have their needs met. The unfortunate truth is that there are always going to be kids who are in that gray area on the curve and how do we help those kids. Most kids are going to be fine in a Gen Ed classroom IF the appropriate services are available for the kids on the tails of the curve because Teachers can focus on differentiation that doesn't include the kids who are falling behind or are ahead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this called an "Equity" report. Gifted Education is based on the assumption that everyone is not of equal intelligence, equal ability.

Because it is assumed that kids of all races are gifted but some are undiscovered.

Then why do they have to lower standards for some particular races in order to call them gifted or advanced?

The report stated that all races had similar means and ranges for test scores. There was no recommendation to change that.

I don't see your repeated claim about this is true. Using NNAT scores as the example:

Mean scores for all students: Asian=113.6, White=107.5, Black=97.6
Mean scores for Level 4 eligibles: Asian=129, White=118, Black=111
Max scores for Level 4 eligibles: Asian=160, White=160, Black=142

I don't think these can be called "similar".

You forgot to put in the MINIMUM scores for all Level 4 eligible students:
WHITE = 70 (this is the 2nd percentile rank!!!!) , Asian = 93, Black = 85

You forgot to put in the MINIMUM scores for all Level 4 eligible students:
WHITE = 70 (this is the 2nd percentile rank!!!!) , Asian = 93, Black = 85

Many of these likely had WISC or other test that was high. You all have way too much trust that this number from a single administration of a group test tells you much.

[Anonymous]

Will this AAP Equity report lead to any changes for the next academic year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poor kids deserve an opportunity to develop to their full potential just like more privileged kids, but that’s difficult to do when stuck in a classroom that moves at a snail’s pace. If a bright student has never been exposed to more advanced material, he/she will score lower on achievement tests like the CogAT than similar students from wealthier schools.

Fairfax should implement school-based norms (i.e. top 10% at each school is in-pool) as recommended in the report and develop a local level IV program at every ES, which would address this issue. And yes, parent referrals should be eliminated.

Stupid idea. This is what they did in Texas for equality. I taught at UT Austin and have never had such disparate student abilities in any other school. Literal geniuses on one end of the class and on the other end a poor hispanic kid that honestly shouldn't be in college at all and can barely write a sentence.

My sister lives in Texas and she has friends who moved to a shitty part of town to put their very average kids in a shitty high school so they had a shot at being in the top 10% of the class and could get in to UT (and obviously because they had money and it was a shitty school, they hired tutors up the wazoo for their kids and signed them up for all the enrichment programs).

This is probably what would end up happening here - people would move to a shitty part of the county so that their kids could get into AAP and then leave for the center in 4th grade (and probably move somewhere nicer too since then their kid is already in).