HOPE Score

[Anonymous]

Tell me about the HOPE Score. What is it?

[Anonymous]

https://www.routledge.com/go/hope-teacher-rating-scales

That and ask your AART

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.routledge.com/go/hope-teacher-rating-scales

That and ask your AART

The link description says it is a tool for "reversing the inequities in identifying culturally, economically, and linguistically diverse students". Is it primarily a DEI tool?

The sample form has teacher filling in the student race upfront. Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.routledge.com/go/hope-teacher-rating-scales

That and ask your AART

The link description says it is a tool for "reversing the inequities in identifying culturally, economically, and linguistically diverse students". Is it primarily a DEI tool?

The sample form has teacher filling in the student race upfront. Why?

HOPE is a kind of DEI effort. But the form in my child's packet last year started with the trait ratings because the demographic info is on the first page of the FCPS form. So no need to repeat it midday through. While they don't include race explicitly, they do include things like ESL and Young Scholar, so it can be discerned that way. Also on the areas where a child might exhibit exceptional talent, "world languages" is included, so being bilingual might result in a check in this area. Occasionally, a child may have lived abroad and picked up a language other than English, but more commonly, they are from an immigrant family speaking another language at home and English in school (even if they don't require ESL support in school which would be truly exceptional in 2nd grade).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.routledge.com/go/hope-teacher-rating-scales

That and ask your AART

The link description says it is a tool for "reversing the inequities in identifying culturally, economically, and linguistically diverse students". Is it primarily a DEI tool?

The sample form has teacher filling in the student race upfront. Why?

It is supposed to be a way for identifying gifted learners that also upholds the goals of DEI.

When I read it, I have absolutely no idea how it identifies academically advanced students who are able to handle the challenges of a faster-paced math curriculum (what AAP actually provides), but the authors are adamant it does.

[Anonymous]

Thinks “outside the box” is kind of a ridiculous way to try to choose students for AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thinks “outside the box” is kind of a ridiculous way to try to choose students for AAP.

That was part of the GBRS too, I think.

This is FCPS's copy of HOPE: https://www.fcps.edu/system/files/forms/2023-10/hoperatingscale.pdf

The ones that killed me were the social skills ones. My oldest, who is incredibly academic, would have gotten occasionally or rarely on all of them. Typical shy academic girl. My youngest, who often gets around 70%s on math tests, is off the charts good at social skills. Because of course - she's a third kid and hangs out with older kids (a check for HOPE) all the time while being naturally extroverted so she can easily check those "leader" and "compassion" checkboxes.

I assume teachers and AARTs (because these things are filled out by a committee at your kids' school) massage their responses to match the kids they think will actually succeed in AAP rather than going by the strict wording.

[Anonymous]

“HOPE” replaced GBRS. The intent was to add more DEI to the AAP program.

Previously, AAP was race-blind. It was open to all, regardless of skin color.

The prior, single-party, school board was not happy with the racial make-up of AAP, even though it was majority-minority (white kids have always been in the minority). Specifically, the prior school board (plus Braybrand) were dismayed at how many brown-skinned Indian kids there were, along with all the Asian kids in AAP. They saw the Asians and Indians as beneficiaries of “unearned privilege”.

So they sought ways to replace as many Indians and Asians with “URMs” - under represented minorities.

The HOPE score included many vague terms which could be used to provide cover for adding more URMs, while justifying including kids who were not “in pool” on the objective academic measurements.

One way to skirt academic achievement standards was to add “arts” to the HOPE scale.

Look at some of the other criteria, which clearly have nothing to do with academics. It’s right there on the scale.

Yes: it is a DEI scheme, quite obviously.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

The HOPE is basically where you find out how much your child's teacher likes him/her. That's literally it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“HOPE” replaced GBRS. The intent was to add more DEI to the AAP program.

Previously, AAP was race-blind. It was open to all, regardless of skin color.

The prior, single-party, school board was not happy with the racial make-up of AAP, even though it was majority-minority (white kids have always been in the minority). Specifically, the prior school board (plus Braybrand) were dismayed at how many brown-skinned Indian kids there were, along with all the Asian kids in AAP. They saw the Asians and Indians as beneficiaries of “unearned privilege”.

So they sought ways to replace as many Indians and Asians with “URMs” - under represented minorities.

The HOPE score included many vague terms which could be used to provide cover for adding more URMs, while justifying including kids who were not “in pool” on the objective academic measurements.

One way to skirt academic achievement standards was to add “arts” to the HOPE scale.

Look at some of the other criteria, which clearly have nothing to do with academics. It’s right there on the scale.

Yes: it is a DEI scheme, quite obviously.

Whoah. You obviously are just making broad, sweeping generalizations here. For example, looking at the history of AAP it's highly unlikely in 2004 the program was majority-minority, so your "always" seems like a stretch.

The belly-aching over which minorities are the right minorities to have in a gifted program long predates the prior board and Brabrand. It's been happening at least since TJ was founded in 1989 and I remember a major fuss over a WaPo article about it in 2000 (and my then-history teacher at TJ saying "TJ has plenty of diversity" as he looked around at the nearly majority-minority school it was).

The HOPE scale was moved to for 2 reasons:

1) less writing than the GBRS, because apparently the 2nd grade committees felt writing up those justifications took too much time
2) the 2020 outside committee report on diversity in AAP said a different measure than GBRS would promote equity. HOPE is, if you read about it, specifically designed to bring URMs into gifted programs according to its own creators.

So yes, DEI was obviously at play. And obviously the old board and Gatehouse were/are in favor. But spewing falsehoods about related things doesn't help build a strong case. It builds a strawman someone else can easily knock down. Try the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The HOPE is basically where you find out how much your child's teacher likes him/her. That's literally it.

Ha, yes.

Only it's a committee, at least at our school. The 1st grade teacher and AART provide input too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“HOPE” replaced GBRS. The intent was to add more DEI to the AAP program.

Previously, AAP was race-blind. It was open to all, regardless of skin color.

The prior, single-party, school board was not happy with the racial make-up of AAP, even though it was majority-minority (white kids have always been in the minority). Specifically, the prior school board (plus Braybrand) were dismayed at how many brown-skinned Indian kids there were, along with all the Asian kids in AAP. They saw the Asians and Indians as beneficiaries of “unearned privilege”.

So they sought ways to replace as many Indians and Asians with “URMs” - under represented minorities.

The HOPE score included many vague terms which could be used to provide cover for adding more URMs, while justifying including kids who were not “in pool” on the objective academic measurements.

One way to skirt academic achievement standards was to add “arts” to the HOPE scale.

Look at some of the other criteria, which clearly have nothing to do with academics. It’s right there on the scale.

Yes: it is a DEI scheme, quite obviously.

Whoah. You obviously are just making broad, sweeping generalizations here. For example, looking at the history of AAP it's highly unlikely in 2004 the program was majority-minority, so your "always" seems like a stretch.

The belly-aching over which minorities are the right minorities to have in a gifted program long predates the prior board and Brabrand. It's been happening at least since TJ was founded in 1989 and I remember a major fuss over a WaPo article about it in 2000 (and my then-history teacher at TJ saying "TJ has plenty of diversity" as he looked around at the nearly majority-minority school it was).

The HOPE scale was moved to for 2 reasons:

1) less writing than the GBRS, because apparently the 2nd grade committees felt writing up those justifications took too much time
2) the 2020 outside committee report on diversity in AAP said a different measure than GBRS would promote equity. HOPE is, if you read about it, specifically designed to bring URMs into gifted programs according to its own creators.

So yes, DEI was obviously at play. And obviously the old board and Gatehouse were/are in favor. But spewing falsehoods about related things doesn't help build a strong case. It builds a strawman someone else can easily knock down. Try the truth.

You just confirmed nearly everything I posted. Here, I’ll quote you:

“ The belly-aching over which minorities are the right minorities to have in a gifted program . . . “

PP: you simply challenged “when” that happened.

“ the 2020 outside committee report on diversity in AAP said a different measure than GBRS would promote equity. HOPE is, if you read about it, specifically designed to bring URMs into gifted programs”

Again: the “diversity committee” obviously found diversity in AAP, since, as you acknowledge, AAP has a majority-diverse population since 2004. The diversity committee obviously wasn’t seeking diversity, they faulted AAP for lack of “equity.”

In other words, they did not like the type of minorities in AAP. They wanted not just minorities, not just non-white students, they sought “URMs”. To the committee, it was not enough to just be a minority student, now AAP had to recruit more “under-represented minorities.”

That is coded language for: too many Asians and Indians.

PP: again, you confirmed what I originally posted.


PP: I retract my use of the word “always.” As you stated, AAP has only been majority minority-student for the last, oh, 20 years.

What does two decades matter, especially in education, right? ( /s, in case you did not understand).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“HOPE” replaced GBRS. The intent was to add more DEI to the AAP program.

Previously, AAP was race-blind. It was open to all, regardless of skin color.

The prior, single-party, school board was not happy with the racial make-up of AAP, even though it was majority-minority (white kids have always been in the minority). Specifically, the prior school board (plus Braybrand) were dismayed at how many brown-skinned Indian kids there were, along with all the Asian kids in AAP. They saw the Asians and Indians as beneficiaries of “unearned privilege”.

So they sought ways to replace as many Indians and Asians with “URMs” - under represented minorities.

The HOPE score included many vague terms which could be used to provide cover for adding more URMs, while justifying including kids who were not “in pool” on the objective academic measurements.

One way to skirt academic achievement standards was to add “arts” to the HOPE scale.

Look at some of the other criteria, which clearly have nothing to do with academics. It’s right there on the scale.

Yes: it is a DEI scheme, quite obviously.

Whoah. You obviously are just making broad, sweeping generalizations here. For example, looking at the history of AAP it's highly unlikely in 2004 the program was majority-minority, so your "always" seems like a stretch.

The belly-aching over which minorities are the right minorities to have in a gifted program long predates the prior board and Brabrand. It's been happening at least since TJ was founded in 1989 and I remember a major fuss over a WaPo article about it in 2000 (and my then-history teacher at TJ saying "TJ has plenty of diversity" as he looked around at the nearly majority-minority school it was).

The HOPE scale was moved to for 2 reasons:

1) less writing than the GBRS, because apparently the 2nd grade committees felt writing up those justifications took too much time
2) the 2020 outside committee report on diversity in AAP said a different measure than GBRS would promote equity. HOPE is, if you read about it, specifically designed to bring URMs into gifted programs according to its own creators.

So yes, DEI was obviously at play. And obviously the old board and Gatehouse were/are in favor. But spewing falsehoods about related things doesn't help build a strong case. It builds a strawman someone else can easily knock down. Try the truth.

You just confirmed nearly everything I posted. Here, I’ll quote you:

“ The belly-aching over which minorities are the right minorities to have in a gifted program . . . “

PP: you simply challenged “when” that happened.

“ the 2020 outside committee report on diversity in AAP said a different measure than GBRS would promote equity. HOPE is, if you read about it, specifically designed to bring URMs into gifted programs”

Again: the “diversity committee” obviously found diversity in AAP, since, as you acknowledge, AAP has a majority-diverse population since 2004. The diversity committee obviously wasn’t seeking diversity, they faulted AAP for lack of “equity.”

In other words, they did not like the type of minorities in AAP. They wanted not just minorities, not just non-white students, they sought “URMs”. To the committee, it was not enough to just be a minority student, now AAP had to recruit more “under-represented minorities.”

That is coded language for: too many Asians and Indians.

PP: again, you confirmed what I originally posted.


PP: I retract my use of the word “always.” As you stated, AAP has only been majority minority-student for the last, oh, 20 years.

What does two decades matter, especially in education, right? ( /s, in case you did not understand).

My point is trying to act like this is a new thing undermines your case. This has been happening for a very, very long time. HOPE is only the latest part of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“HOPE” replaced GBRS. The intent was to add more DEI to the AAP program.

Previously, AAP was race-blind. It was open to all, regardless of skin color.

The prior, single-party, school board was not happy with the racial make-up of AAP, even though it was majority-minority (white kids have always been in the minority). Specifically, the prior school board (plus Braybrand) were dismayed at how many brown-skinned Indian kids there were, along with all the Asian kids in AAP. They saw the Asians and Indians as beneficiaries of “unearned privilege”.

So they sought ways to replace as many Indians and Asians with “URMs” - under represented minorities.

The HOPE score included many vague terms which could be used to provide cover for adding more URMs, while justifying including kids who were not “in pool” on the objective academic measurements.

One way to skirt academic achievement standards was to add “arts” to the HOPE scale.

Look at some of the other criteria, which clearly have nothing to do with academics. It’s right there on the scale.

Yes: it is a DEI scheme, quite obviously.

Whoah. You obviously are just making broad, sweeping generalizations here. For example, looking at the history of AAP it's highly unlikely in 2004 the program was majority-minority, so your "always" seems like a stretch.

The belly-aching over which minorities are the right minorities to have in a gifted program long predates the prior board and Brabrand. It's been happening at least since TJ was founded in 1989 and I remember a major fuss over a WaPo article about it in 2000 (and my then-history teacher at TJ saying "TJ has plenty of diversity" as he looked around at the nearly majority-minority school it was).

The HOPE scale was moved to for 2 reasons:

1) less writing than the GBRS, because apparently the 2nd grade committees felt writing up those justifications took too much time
2) the 2020 outside committee report on diversity in AAP said a different measure than GBRS would promote equity. HOPE is, if you read about it, specifically designed to bring URMs into gifted programs according to its own creators.

So yes, DEI was obviously at play. And obviously the old board and Gatehouse were/are in favor. But spewing falsehoods about related things doesn't help build a strong case. It builds a strawman someone else can easily knock down. Try the truth.

You just confirmed nearly everything I posted. Here, I’ll quote you:

“ The belly-aching over which minorities are the right minorities to have in a gifted program . . . “

PP: you simply challenged “when” that happened.

“ the 2020 outside committee report on diversity in AAP said a different measure than GBRS would promote equity. HOPE is, if you read about it, specifically designed to bring URMs into gifted programs”

Again: the “diversity committee” obviously found diversity in AAP, since, as you acknowledge, AAP has a majority-diverse population since 2004. The diversity committee obviously wasn’t seeking diversity, they faulted AAP for lack of “equity.”

In other words, they did not like the type of minorities in AAP. They wanted not just minorities, not just non-white students, they sought “URMs”. To the committee, it was not enough to just be a minority student, now AAP had to recruit more “under-represented minorities.”

That is coded language for: too many Asians and Indians.

PP: again, you confirmed what I originally posted.


PP: I retract my use of the word “always.” As you stated, AAP has only been majority minority-student for the last, oh, 20 years.

What does two decades matter, especially in education, right? ( /s, in case you did not understand).

My point is trying to act like this is a new thing undermines your case. This has been happening for a very, very long time. HOPE is only the latest part of it.

Agreed.

The GBRS was race-neutral and did not include reduced/free lunch as a factor in determining a student’s qualifications for the AAP program.

The HOPE scale leads with those two factors, before reaching the student’s academic qualifications.

I believe students should not be judged on the color of their skin, but rather on the content of their demonstrated academic ability.

FCPS is doing just the opposite.

There is a name for what FCPS is doing: racial discrimination. I believe racism is wrong.