Should AAP demographics represent FCPS as a whole

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The way AAP is currently being implemented (through grade level extensions) probably underserving many gifted kids...and many kids that can do the work but don't get in are being underserved by GE...I would like to know the reasons why some AAP parents are against AAP for all.

*my guess is that AAP is probably underserving....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The way AAP is currently being implemented (through grade level extensions) probably underserving many gifted kids...and many kids that can do the work but don't get in are being underserved by GE...I would like to know the reasons why some AAP parents are against AAP for all.

Easy. Kids with best test scores = most qualified. Just so happens that most kids who test well are white and asian. If minority kids can't cut it, then they just can't. They need to work harder to make the cut.

We all take the same tests, and are taught the same material. We all start at the same starting line. The argument of "societal disadvantages" is nebulous at best and unsolvable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way AAP is currently being implemented (through grade level extensions) probably underserving many gifted kids...and many kids that can do the work but don't get in are being underserved by GE...I would like to know the reasons why some AAP parents are against AAP for all.

Easy. Kids with best test scores = most qualified. Just so happens that most kids who test well are white and asian. If minority kids can't cut it, then they just can't. They need to work harder to make the cut.

We all take the same tests, and are taught the same material. We all start at the same starting line. The argument of "societal disadvantages" is nebulous at best and unsolvable.

Do you really think the color of a person's skin or their ethnicity pre-disposes them to be better test takers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way AAP is currently being implemented (through grade level extensions) probably underserving many gifted kids...and many kids that can do the work but don't get in are being underserved by GE...I would like to know the reasons why some AAP parents are against AAP for all.

Easy. Kids with best test scores = most qualified. Just so happens that most kids who test well are white and asian. If minority kids can't cut it, then they just can't. They need to work harder to make the cut.

We all take the same tests, and are taught the same material. We all start at the same starting line. The argument of "societal disadvantages" is nebulous at best and unsolvable.

Do you really think the color of a person's skin or their ethnicity pre-disposes them to be better test takers?

Intelligence is partially inherited, and partially learned. Smarter parents produce smarter kids, and a home that values education produces better results. That's not to say those are the only circumstances in which a child will be "gifted," but they raise the odds dramatically.

How far do you want to lower the bar to make sure we account for "disadvantages" that we can't really evaluate? Is it worth a 10% handicap for being black? 20% for being poor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way AAP is currently being implemented (through grade level extensions) probably underserving many gifted kids...and many kids that can do the work but don't get in are being underserved by GE...I would like to know the reasons why some AAP parents are against AAP for all.

Easy. Kids with best test scores = most qualified. Just so happens that most kids who test well are white and asian. If minority kids can't cut it, then they just can't. They need to work harder to make the cut.

We all take the same tests, and are taught the same material. We all start at the same starting line. The argument of "societal disadvantages" is nebulous at best and unsolvable.

Maybe reading isn't your strength...but you didn't answer the original question...Why are you "against" AAP for all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way AAP is currently being implemented (through grade level extensions) probably underserving many gifted kids...and many kids that can do the work but don't get in are being underserved by GE...I would like to know the reasons why some AAP parents are against AAP for all.

Easy. Kids with best test scores = most qualified. Just so happens that most kids who test well are white and asian. If minority kids can't cut it, then they just can't. They need to work harder to make the cut.

We all take the same tests, and are taught the same material. We all start at the same starting line. The argument of "societal disadvantages" is nebulous at best and unsolvable.

Maybe reading isn't your strength...but you didn't answer the original question...Why are you "against" AAP for all?

Its a ridiculous question. AAP is for all. There are no rules that purposely restrict certain people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way AAP is currently being implemented (through grade level extensions) probably underserving many gifted kids...and many kids that can do the work but don't get in are being underserved by GE...I would like to know the reasons why some AAP parents are against AAP for all.

Easy. Kids with best test scores = most qualified. Just so happens that most kids who test well are white and asian. If minority kids can't cut it, then they just can't. They need to work harder to make the cut.

We all take the same tests, and are taught the same material. We all start at the same starting line. The argument of "societal disadvantages" is nebulous at best and unsolvable.

Do you really think the color of a person's skin or their ethnicity pre-disposes them to be better test takers?

Intelligence is partially inherited, and partially learned. Smarter parents produce smarter kids, and a home that values education produces better results. That's not to say those are the only circumstances in which a child will be "gifted," but they raise the odds dramatically.

How far do you want to lower the bar to make sure we account for "disadvantages" that we can't really evaluate? Is it worth a 10% handicap for being black? 20% for being poor?

And the bar is test scores. The only real way we can measure a persons intellectual capacity is through testing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way AAP is currently being implemented (through grade level extensions) probably underserving many gifted kids...and many kids that can do the work but don't get in are being underserved by GE...I would like to know the reasons why some AAP parents are against AAP for all.

Easy. Kids with best test scores = most qualified. Just so happens that most kids who test well are white and asian. If minority kids can't cut it, then they just can't. They need to work harder to make the cut.

We all take the same tests, and are taught the same material. We all start at the same starting line. The argument of "societal disadvantages" is nebulous at best and unsolvable.

Do you really think the color of a person's skin or their ethnicity pre-disposes them to be better test takers?

Of course it does. Just look at the data. Black and brown kids consistently do worse on all levels of standardized testing than their white and asian counterparts. Since most selective schools and jobs high demand high performance on these tests, they have been, and will continue to lag behind the rest in all aspects of academic and professional society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way AAP is currently being implemented (through grade level extensions) probably underserving many gifted kids...and many kids that can do the work but don't get in are being underserved by GE...I would like to know the reasons why some AAP parents are against AAP for all.

Easy. Kids with best test scores = most qualified. Just so happens that most kids who test well are white and asian. If minority kids can't cut it, then they just can't. They need to work harder to make the cut.

We all take the same tests, and are taught the same material. We all start at the same starting line. The argument of "societal disadvantages" is nebulous at best and unsolvable.

Do you really think the color of a person's skin or their ethnicity pre-disposes them to be better test takers?

Intelligence is partially inherited, and partially learned. Smarter parents produce smarter kids, and a home that values education produces better results. That's not to say those are the only circumstances in which a child will be "gifted," but they raise the odds dramatically.

How far do you want to lower the bar to make sure we account for "disadvantages" that we can't really evaluate? Is it worth a 10% handicap for being black? 20% for being poor?

And the bar is test scores. The only real way we can measure a persons intellectual capacity is through testing.

Not just testing. Standardized multiple choice testing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Want to hear thoughts, from all perspectives.

I keep hearing that certain groups are under-represented in AAP. The question is whether FCPS should ensure the AAP population mirrors the overall FCPS student population, by percentages of race, gender, background, etc.

Nope, it shouldn't. That's the essence of meritocracy -- to measure things objectively, using exactly same standards for all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Want to hear thoughts, from all perspectives.

I keep hearing that certain groups are under-represented in AAP. The question is whether FCPS should ensure the AAP population mirrors the overall FCPS student population, by percentages of race, gender, background, etc.

Nope, it shouldn't. That's the essence of meritocracy -- to measure things objectively, using exactly same standards for all.

b/c everyone is given the exact same chance in society. This is America. Everyone starts at the same starting line. So these standards valid b/c we are measuring everyone apples to apples essentially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Want to hear thoughts, from all perspectives.

I keep hearing that certain groups are under-represented in AAP. The question is whether FCPS should ensure the AAP population mirrors the overall FCPS student population, by percentages of race, gender, background, etc.

Nope, it shouldn't. That's the essence of meritocracy -- to measure things objectively, using exactly same standards for all.

b/c everyone is given the exact same chance in society. This is America. Everyone starts at the same starting line. So these standards valid b/c we are measuring everyone apples to apples essentially.

Not everyone starts at the same starting line. Sad but true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Want to hear thoughts, from all perspectives.

I keep hearing that certain groups are under-represented in AAP. The question is whether FCPS should ensure the AAP population mirrors the overall FCPS student population, by percentages of race, gender, background, etc.

Nope, it shouldn't. That's the essence of meritocracy -- to measure things objectively, using exactly same standards for all.

b/c everyone is given the exact same chance in society. This is America. Everyone starts at the same starting line. So these standards valid b/c we are measuring everyone apples to apples essentially.

Not everyone starts at the same starting line. Sad but true.

Ok- well we still need standards. We can't lower standards b/c others had a more difficult life. It would defeat the purpose of standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Want to hear thoughts, from all perspectives.

I keep hearing that certain groups are under-represented in AAP. The question is whether FCPS should ensure the AAP population mirrors the overall FCPS student population, by percentages of race, gender, background, etc.

Nope, it shouldn't. That's the essence of meritocracy -- to measure things objectively, using exactly same standards for all.

b/c everyone is given the exact same chance in society. This is America. Everyone starts at the same starting line. So these standards valid b/c we are measuring everyone apples to apples essentially.

Not everyone starts at the same starting line. Sad but true.

So how much do you want to compensate for that to make things "fair"? With the CoGAT would it be 10 points? 20?

[Anonymous]

b/c everyone is given the exact same chance in society. This is America. Everyone starts at the same starting line. So these standards valid b/c we are measuring everyone apples to apples essentially.

Everyone in America most certainly does not start at the same starting line. Babies are born to families with all sorts of advantages and disadvantages. A child born to parents that are educated and emphasize education to their children is standing at a starting line that is miles ahead of the child born to parents without a college education and that child is miles ahead of the child born to parents in deep poverty or with mental health issues. Is the child born to educated parents somehow more valuable and more worthy of a challenging education because of an accident of birth?

Public education can never totally compensate for deficits in every child's family situation, but I believe it should provide opportunities and do its best to enable all kids to reach their potential.