AAP Equity report

[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.

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).

Nah. The DC area is way too status conscious for this to happen on a widespread level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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).

Nah. The DC area is way too status conscious for this to happen on a widespread level.

I wouldn't be so sure. Remember a year or two ago when there was a discussion about only admitting a certain % from each MS to TJ? A lot of parents at huge TJ feeder schools were opposed to the idea, but quickly said they'd have no qualms about renting an apartment zoned for one of the lower ranked middle schools in order to get their kids a shot. I could absolutely see people doing the same thing with AAP, especially because houses are quite a bit cheaper if you move to a lower rated ES.

[Anonymous]

There is a simple solution. If the pool is going to be based on school-wide norms rather than county norms, then AAP status shouldn't be portable between schools. At the very least, a kid who was previously identified as AAP in a high FARMs, Title I school who is transferring to a school in for example McLean should need test scores and GBRS above the median for kids in McLean AAP to be admitted into the program there.

[Anonymous]

That would stink if they did that but I could totally see parents moving to the crappy part of town for the AAP designation then moving away. I've seen this with TJ. If kids didn't get in, they moved to a better high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: 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

That is the goal of more than one poster. They will argue that testing is biased, but their end goal is no secret. For some reason, they appear to be more concerned about race than the poor. The low test scores of their kids is always someone else's fault.

[Anonymous]

^ I’d love to see stronger Young Scholars services and significant reduction of parent referrals and parental input into the selection process. Then, the resulting demographics will be what they will be, but we should all be able to accept that they’re reasonably equitable.

Based on the report, eliminating parent referrals is likely to decrease the number of both the under-qualified URMs pushed into the program as well as the privileged, above average white kids whose parents push them in. It’s all good to me.

[Anonymous]

I just wish they could have taken maybe one quarter Of the pages, time, and other resources devoted to equity in AAP to just evaluate AAP. Is the program successful? Is it helpful or serving needs? How inconsistent is it? How does it compare to gen ed? We can make changes to who gets in or how, but that is not very meaningful without some of that information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Now that is a disturbing stat.

If you want the full context, it's the first paragraph on page 27

The full context is that the system has been heavily rigged in favor of URM and they still end up being underrepresented. Do we need to rig the system further or should we do something different? Since when does Equality mean equal outcome in this country?

Obviously we need to rig the system further.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just wish they could have taken maybe one quarter Of the pages, time, and other resources devoted to equity in AAP to just evaluate AAP. Is the program successful? Is it helpful or serving needs? How inconsistent is it? How does it compare to gen ed? We can make changes to who gets in or how, but that is not very meaningful without some of that information.

I wish all schools were equal in what they offer but we know that's not true. AAP will be different, too, depending on where you go if they change the entrance scores based on location.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just wish they could have taken maybe one quarter Of the pages, time, and other resources devoted to equity in AAP to just evaluate AAP. Is the program successful? Is it helpful or serving needs? How inconsistent is it? How does it compare to gen ed? We can make changes to who gets in or how, but that is not very meaningful without some of that information.

I wish all schools were equal in what they offer but we know that's not true. AAP will be different, too, depending on where you go if they change the entrance scores based on location.

It makes sense for this to be the case. AAP is supposed to meet the needs of kids who can't have their needs met in a regular classroom in their regular school. In a high FARMs school, the kid with a 120 IQ who is mildly advanced might be an outlier who needs to be grouped with other bright kids. In McLean, half of the grade might have 120 IQs and be mildly advanced. Their needs would be met in a regular classroom in their school. In schools like that, the IQ 130+ kids who are several years above grade level are the ones who need an AAP program that isn't diluted by garden variety bright kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just wish they could have taken maybe one quarter Of the pages, time, and other resources devoted to equity in AAP to just evaluate AAP. Is the program successful? Is it helpful or serving needs? How inconsistent is it? How does it compare to gen ed? We can make changes to who gets in or how, but that is not very meaningful without some of that information.

I wish all schools were equal in what they offer but we know that's not true. AAP will be different, too, depending on where you go if they change the entrance scores based on location.

It makes sense for this to be the case. AAP is supposed to meet the needs of kids who can't have their needs met in a regular classroom in their regular school. In a high FARMs school, the kid with a 120 IQ who is mildly advanced might be an outlier who needs to be grouped with other bright kids. In McLean, half of the grade might have 120 IQs and be mildly advanced. Their needs would be met in a regular classroom in their school. In schools like that, the IQ 130+ kids who are several years above grade level are the ones who need an AAP program that isn't diluted by garden variety bright kids.

Maybe. However, there are center that do not necessarily match demographics of feeder bases, as well perhaps as bases that send more or less eligible kids to centers. The only way to know or draw conclusions would be to look into it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why is it when a score from a white student is low, it is discounted, but not if a score from an URM is low? Outside testing like the WISC should NOT be allowed. It rigs the system in favor of affluent households. Then add in GRBS which the report flat out states is biased.
The largest group of students who are being missed are kids on FARM. I think the report says only 6% qualified. I think the district as a whole is almost 30% FARMS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why is it when a score from a white student is low, it is discounted, but not if a score from an URM is low? Outside testing like the WISC should NOT be allowed. It rigs the system in favor of affluent households. Then add in GRBS which the report flat out states is biased.
The largest group of students who are being missed are kids on FARM. I think the report says only 6% qualified. I think the district as a whole is almost 30% FARMS.

I have two 2E kids so I’m going to disagree with you on not allowing the WISC.

That said you do have a point I think, that even when they try to expand it to URMs, it’s the middle to upper middle class who mainly benefit as opposed to FARMs. They should probably look into that. It’s a real issue at TJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why is it when a score from a white student is low, it is discounted, but not if a score from an URM is low? Outside testing like the WISC should NOT be allowed. It rigs the system in favor of affluent households. Then add in GRBS which the report flat out states is biased.
The largest group of students who are being missed are kids on FARM. I think the report says only 6% qualified. I think the district as a whole is almost 30% FARMS.

I have two 2E kids so I’m going to disagree with you on not allowing the WISC.

That said you do have a point I think, that even when they try to expand it to URMs, it’s the middle to upper middle class who mainly benefit as opposed to FARMs. They should probably look into that. It’s a real issue at TJ.

This is another huge problem. How is it that 21% of students in AAP have 504 plans that entitle them to accommodations like extra time when in the district only 1% have 504 plans? Who qualifies for 504 plans is ridiculous. 89% are not socially disadvantaged. Of students who have 504 plans 79% are white and 17% are Hispanic. That adds up to 96%- meaning that Blacks and Asians are completely underrepresented. If an affluent white child tests average on the COGAT they must have a disability. Poor kids get average and it is assumed that is their potential.

A report on special education/504 states:
Gifted Status
Overall, 19.1% of all students at APS are identified as Gifted. Gifted students are underrepresented in the areas of IEPs (6%) and IATs (8%). Conversely, they are somewhat overrepresented in the area of Section 504 (25%).
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/APS-Sped-Final-Report-1.18-1.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That said you do have a point I think, that even when they try to expand it to URMs, it’s the middle to upper middle class who mainly benefit as opposed to FARMs. They should probably look into that. It’s a real issue at TJ.

This is another huge problem. How is it that 21% of students in AAP have 504 plans that entitle them to accommodations like extra time when in the district only 1% have 504 plans? Who qualifies for 504 plans is ridiculous. 89% are not socially disadvantaged. Of students who have 504 plans 79% are white and 17% are Hispanic. That adds up to 96%- meaning that Blacks and Asians are completely underrepresented. If an affluent white child tests average on the COGAT they must have a disability. Poor kids get average and it is assumed that is their potential.

A report on special education/504 states:
Gifted Status
Overall, 19.1% of all students at APS are identified as Gifted. Gifted students are underrepresented in the areas of IEPs (6%) and IATs (8%). Conversely, they are somewhat overrepresented in the area of Section 504 (25%).
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/APS-Sped-Final-Report-1.18-1.pdf

Privileged white people are good at gaming the system. They can't accept that their kids are in the average range, so instead they shop for a psychologist to label their kids with a disability, so they can get a 504. Then, they prep for the CogAT while pretending that they're not prepping. Their kids still get 115-120ish scores, but they parent refer in droves and craft packets designed to get their average or slightly above average kids in.

White kids are overrepresented in 504s. They're also overrepresented in parent referrals, with a ratio near 1:2 for in-pool: referrals. I'm not bothered by the schools lowering the standard for URMs, since the biggest culprits of gaming the system and shoving their unqualified kids in are upper middle class white people.

Before anyone accuses me of racism, I am white and socialize with plenty of other white people. Every kid in my neighborhood was found AAP eligible. Most of those kids are somewhat above average, got 120-ish test scores after prepping (yes, people talked about prepping at the bus stop), had their parents spend a lot of time crafting the parent referrals, and got in. Many of them are now convinced that their kids are "gifted," despite their kids' low SOL and IAAT scores.