Does AAP committee know the race of the child applying? Or the make assumptions based on first/last

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, and there are quotas

You would be able to sue them and win millions in court if this were true. It is completely illegal in the US for public school to use race as an admission criteria.

Yes, the information the admission committee gets is stripped of surname, race, or other identifying information. They get basic things like gender and whether the student qualifies for free lunch or is ESOL in addition to their grades and test scores.

Yeah, but the back door for this is that Young Scholar status is still in the application. Young Scholars is not purely race based, but generally, kids are invited if they are URMs, lower income, or perceived to be disadvantaged in some way. The selection panel knows that if they admit a Young Scholar, the kid is more likely to be a URM than a kid who is not an identified Young Scholar.

[Anonymous]

The AAP equity report showed that given the exact same test scores and GBRS, AA kids were 5 times more likely than Asian kids to be admitted to AAP. That result is statistically improbable if all identifying information is scrubbed from the file. Either the committee knows the race of the kid or can guess the race based on school, FARMS status, or Young Scholars. One way or another, race is an input in the system

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The AAP equity report showed that given the exact same test scores and GBRS, AA kids were 5 times more likely than Asian kids to be admitted to AAP. That result is statistically improbable if all identifying information is scrubbed from the file. Either the committee knows the race of the kid or can guess the race based on school, FARMS status, or Young Scholars. One way or another, race is an input in the system

And despite that less than 5% of TJ is AA and about 70% is Asian. Please stop kidding yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The AAP equity report showed that given the exact same test scores and GBRS, AA kids were 5 times more likely than Asian kids to be admitted to AAP. That result is statistically improbable if all identifying information is scrubbed from the file. Either the committee knows the race of the kid or can guess the race based on school, FARMS status, or Young Scholars. One way or another, race is an input in the system

I would expect that Teacher Referrals have the highest level of admits, then in-pool referrals, and then parent referrals.

I would guess that Teacher referrals, which happen at a higher rate for AA and Hispanic kids because their parents are less likely to parent refer, end up with a high acceptance rate because the Parent who is putting the kids name in is writing the GBRSs. A Teacher who refers a kid with a 120 CogAT is going to give that kid with the CogAT a strong GBRSs. A Parent referred kid with a 120 CogAT is not as likely to get high GBRSs, it ends up depending more on the individual kid an the individual Teacher. The Audit you are referencing calls out that White and Asian families are far more likely to parent refer and encourages Teachers to refer kids whose parents are less likely to refer, which tend to be AA and Hispanic kids at Title 1 and near Title 1 scores.

I believe 2/3 of the kids who are In-Pool are accepted into AAP. So higher test scores on their own. It is not hard to see that kids with higher test scores are probably doing well in school and that Teachers would end up writing stronger GBRSs for said students. The 1/3 who are not accepted are the kids that scored well but are not doing well in school or displaying the traits that the GBRSs are looking for for whatever reason.

Parent referrals have a 50% chance of leading to acceptance. And this is where you find a lot of White and Asian families. Test scores are not high enough to be in-pool and the possibility that their track record at the school is not strong enough to lead to high GBRSs is greater. So that 120 White or Asian kid from McLean who is parent referred is likely to have very different GBRSs then the 120 kid from a Title 1 school that the Teacher Referred. And that is where you get the difference that you are talking about.

If they changed the process so that it was only in-pool on test score or Teacher referred it would be interesting to see how different the process would play out. It would be a far smaller pool and I suspect the acceptance rate would be far higher then the current process. But then Teachers at some schools would be dealing with the parents who come here and complain that their kid had crappy GBRSs because the Teacher didn't see their kid as deserving of AAP at Parent Teacher conferences and calling the Principal to complain about the Teacher. And there would be the attempts to get kids into the class with the teacher who will refer everyone. And all those headaches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AAP equity report showed that given the exact same test scores and GBRS, AA kids were 5 times more likely than Asian kids to be admitted to AAP. That result is statistically improbable if all identifying information is scrubbed from the file. Either the committee knows the race of the kid or can guess the race based on school, FARMS status, or Young Scholars. One way or another, race is an input in the system

I would expect that Teacher Referrals have the highest level of admits, then in-pool referrals, and then parent referrals.

I would guess that Teacher referrals, which happen at a higher rate for AA and Hispanic kids because their parents are less likely to parent refer, end up with a high acceptance rate because the Parent who is putting the kids name in is writing the GBRSs. A Teacher who refers a kid with a 120 CogAT is going to give that kid with the CogAT a strong GBRSs. A Parent referred kid with a 120 CogAT is not as likely to get high GBRSs, it ends up depending more on the individual kid an the individual Teacher. The Audit you are referencing calls out that White and Asian families are far more likely to parent refer and encourages Teachers to refer kids whose parents are less likely to refer, which tend to be AA and Hispanic kids at Title 1 and near Title 1 scores.

I believe 2/3 of the kids who are In-Pool are accepted into AAP. So higher test scores on their own. It is not hard to see that kids with higher test scores are probably doing well in school and that Teachers would end up writing stronger GBRSs for said students. The 1/3 who are not accepted are the kids that scored well but are not doing well in school or displaying the traits that the GBRSs are looking for for whatever reason.

Parent referrals have a 50% chance of leading to acceptance. And this is where you find a lot of White and Asian families. Test scores are not high enough to be in-pool and the possibility that their track record at the school is not strong enough to lead to high GBRSs is greater. So that 120 White or Asian kid from McLean who is parent referred is likely to have very different GBRSs then the 120 kid from a Title 1 school that the Teacher Referred. And that is where you get the difference that you are talking about.

If they changed the process so that it was only in-pool on test score or Teacher referred it would be interesting to see how different the process would play out. It would be a far smaller pool and I suspect the acceptance rate would be far higher then the current process. But then Teachers at some schools would be dealing with the parents who come here and complain that their kid had crappy GBRSs because the Teacher didn't see their kid as deserving of AAP at Parent Teacher conferences and calling the Principal to complain about the Teacher. And there would be the attempts to get kids into the class with the teacher who will refer everyone. And all those headaches.

Whoops that should be Teacher and not Parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AAP equity report showed that given the exact same test scores and GBRS, AA kids were 5 times more likely than Asian kids to be admitted to AAP. That result is statistically improbable if all identifying information is scrubbed from the file. Either the committee knows the race of the kid or can guess the race based on school, FARMS status, or Young Scholars. One way or another, race is an input in the system

I would expect that Teacher Referrals have the highest level of admits, then in-pool referrals, and then parent referrals.

I would guess that Teacher referrals, which happen at a higher rate for AA and Hispanic kids because their parents are less likely to parent refer, end up with a high acceptance rate because the Parent who is putting the kids name in is writing the GBRSs. A Teacher who refers a kid with a 120 CogAT is going to give that kid with the CogAT a strong GBRSs. A Parent referred kid with a 120 CogAT is not as likely to get high GBRSs, it ends up depending more on the individual kid an the individual Teacher. The Audit you are referencing calls out that White and Asian families are far more likely to parent refer and encourages Teachers to refer kids whose parents are less likely to refer, which tend to be AA and Hispanic kids at Title 1 and near Title 1 scores.

I believe 2/3 of the kids who are In-Pool are accepted into AAP. So higher test scores on their own. It is not hard to see that kids with higher test scores are probably doing well in school and that Teachers would end up writing stronger GBRSs for said students. The 1/3 who are not accepted are the kids that scored well but are not doing well in school or displaying the traits that the GBRSs are looking for for whatever reason.

Parent referrals have a 50% chance of leading to acceptance. And this is where you find a lot of White and Asian families. Test scores are not high enough to be in-pool and the possibility that their track record at the school is not strong enough to lead to high GBRSs is greater. So that 120 White or Asian kid from McLean who is parent referred is likely to have very different GBRSs then the 120 kid from a Title 1 school that the Teacher Referred. And that is where you get the difference that you are talking about.

If they changed the process so that it was only in-pool on test score or Teacher referred it would be interesting to see how different the process would play out. It would be a far smaller pool and I suspect the acceptance rate would be far higher then the current process. But then Teachers at some schools would be dealing with the parents who come here and complain that their kid had crappy GBRSs because the Teacher didn't see their kid as deserving of AAP at Parent Teacher conferences and calling the Principal to complain about the Teacher. And there would be the attempts to get kids into the class with the teacher who will refer everyone. And all those headaches.

Intersting theory but unlikely given there are so few AA or Hispanic children in these programs.

[Anonymous]

Let's look at actual data. This is all from the AAP equity report and reflects the 2018 2nd grade cohort.

For AA kids, 26 were in Pool, 61 were Teacher referred, 179 were parent referred, and 154 of those got accepted to AAP
For Hispanic kids, 72 were in pool, 139 were teacher referred, 199 were parent referred, and 270 got in.
For White kids, 596 were in pool, 114 were teacher referred, 1044 were parent referred, 879 got in.
For Asian kids, 592 were in pool, 79 were teacher referred, 555 were parent referred, and 677 got in.


This means that for AA kids, while only 9.8% of the files evaluated had in pool scores, 57.9% of all AA files were found eligible. For Asian kids, 48.2% of the files evaluated had in pool scores, and yet only 55% of the files were found eligible. There was no real difference between the median GBRS scores of AAP eligible kids when broken down by race.

I don't necessarily disagree with giving a leg up to URMs in AAP admissions. If you look at the data, though, it's ludicrous to imagine that the process is race blind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's look at actual data. This is all from the AAP equity report and reflects the 2018 2nd grade cohort.

For AA kids, 26 were in Pool, 61 were Teacher referred, 179 were parent referred, and 154 of those got accepted to AAP
For Hispanic kids, 72 were in pool, 139 were teacher referred, 199 were parent referred, and 270 got in.
For White kids, 596 were in pool, 114 were teacher referred, 1044 were parent referred, 879 got in.
For Asian kids, 592 were in pool, 79 were teacher referred, 555 were parent referred, and 677 got in.


This means that for AA kids, while only 9.8% of the files evaluated had in pool scores, 57.9% of all AA files were found eligible. For Asian kids, 48.2% of the files evaluated had in pool scores, and yet only 55% of the files were found eligible. There was no real difference between the median GBRS scores of AAP eligible kids when broken down by race.

I don't necessarily disagree with giving a leg up to URMs in AAP admissions. If you look at the data, though, it's ludicrous to imagine that the process is race blind.

So white kids have the lowest admit rate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's look at actual data. This is all from the AAP equity report and reflects the 2018 2nd grade cohort.

For AA kids, 26 were in Pool, 61 were Teacher referred, 179 were parent referred, and 154 of those got accepted to AAP
For Hispanic kids, 72 were in pool, 139 were teacher referred, 199 were parent referred, and 270 got in.
For White kids, 596 were in pool, 114 were teacher referred, 1044 were parent referred, 879 got in.
For Asian kids, 592 were in pool, 79 were teacher referred, 555 were parent referred, and 677 got in.


This means that for AA kids, while only 9.8% of the files evaluated had in pool scores, 57.9% of all AA files were found eligible. For Asian kids, 48.2% of the files evaluated had in pool scores, and yet only 55% of the files were found eligible. There was no real difference between the median GBRS scores of AAP eligible kids when broken down by race.

I don't necessarily disagree with giving a leg up to URMs in AAP admissions. If you look at the data, though, it's ludicrous to imagine that the process is race blind.

So white kids have the lowest admit rate?

Yep. If we take the numbers further and assume that 67% of In Pool kids are accepted, 50% of parent referrals are accepted, and 80% of teacher referrals are accepted, then these rates would predict that 156 AA kids would get in (very close to the actual value), 259 Hispanic kids would get in (lower than the actual value), 1011 White kids would get in (much higher than the actual value), and 735 Asian kids would get admitted (higher than the actual value)

This is consistent with the findings that given the same test scores and GBRS, AA kids are much more likely than white kids to get admitted, and Asian kids are very slightly more likely than white kids to get admitted. None of this would be reasonable if the process were race blind. Unlike TJ admissions, though, FCPS has never claimed that AAP admissions are race blind.

From the article:
"This means that although African American and Hispanic students are still disproportionally underrepresented in Level IV services, they are actually being placed in Level IV services at higher rates than would be expected given their NNAT, CogAT, and GBRS scores. African American students with similar scores as their European American peers were identified for Level IV services at a rate of 5.7 to 1. Similarly, while Asian American students are disproportionally overrepresented in Level IV services compared to their enrollment in the overall FCPS population, this rate is close to what should be expected given their test scores. Asian American students with similar scores as their
European American peers were identified for Level IV services at a rate of 1.1 to 1"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's look at actual data. This is all from the AAP equity report and reflects the 2018 2nd grade cohort.

For AA kids, 26 were in Pool, 61 were Teacher referred, 179 were parent referred, and 154 of those got accepted to AAP
For Hispanic kids, 72 were in pool, 139 were teacher referred, 199 were parent referred, and 270 got in.
For White kids, 596 were in pool, 114 were teacher referred, 1044 were parent referred, 879 got in.
For Asian kids, 592 were in pool, 79 were teacher referred, 555 were parent referred, and 677 got in.


This means that for AA kids, while only 9.8% of the files evaluated had in pool scores, 57.9% of all AA files were found eligible. For Asian kids, 48.2% of the files evaluated had in pool scores, and yet only 55% of the files were found eligible. There was no real difference between the median GBRS scores of AAP eligible kids when broken down by race.

I don't necessarily disagree with giving a leg up to URMs in AAP admissions. If you look at the data, though, it's ludicrous to imagine that the process is race blind.

So white kids have the lowest admit rate?

Yep. If we take the numbers further and assume that 67% of In Pool kids are accepted, 50% of parent referrals are accepted, and 80% of teacher referrals are accepted, then these rates would predict that 156 AA kids would get in (very close to the actual value), 259 Hispanic kids would get in (lower than the actual value), 1011 White kids would get in (much higher than the actual value), and 735 Asian kids would get admitted (higher than the actual value)

This is consistent with the findings that given the same test scores and GBRS, AA kids are much more likely than white kids to get admitted, and Asian kids are very slightly more likely than white kids to get admitted. None of this would be reasonable if the process were race blind. Unlike TJ admissions, though, FCPS has never claimed that AAP admissions are race blind.

From the article:
"This means that although African American and Hispanic students are still disproportionally underrepresented in Level IV services, they are actually being placed in Level IV services at higher rates than would be expected given their NNAT, CogAT, and GBRS scores. African American students with similar scores as their European American peers were identified for Level IV services at a rate of 5.7 to 1. Similarly, while Asian American students are disproportionally overrepresented in Level IV services compared to their enrollment in the overall FCPS population, this rate is close to what should be expected given their test scores. Asian American students with similar scores as their
European American peers were identified for Level IV services at a rate of 1.1 to 1"

Wouldn’t the lower white admit rate be due to high parent referral rates? Which tends to admit less kids overall?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's look at actual data. This is all from the AAP equity report and reflects the 2018 2nd grade cohort.

For AA kids, 26 were in Pool, 61 were Teacher referred, 179 were parent referred, and 154 of those got accepted to AAP
For Hispanic kids, 72 were in pool, 139 were teacher referred, 199 were parent referred, and 270 got in.
For White kids, 596 were in pool, 114 were teacher referred, 1044 were parent referred, 879 got in.
For Asian kids, 592 were in pool, 79 were teacher referred, 555 were parent referred, and 677 got in.


This means that for AA kids, while only 9.8% of the files evaluated had in pool scores, 57.9% of all AA files were found eligible. For Asian kids, 48.2% of the files evaluated had in pool scores, and yet only 55% of the files were found eligible. There was no real difference between the median GBRS scores of AAP eligible kids when broken down by race.

I don't necessarily disagree with giving a leg up to URMs in AAP admissions. If you look at the data, though, it's ludicrous to imagine that the process is race blind.

So white kids have the lowest admit rate?

Yep. If we take the numbers further and assume that 67% of In Pool kids are accepted, 50% of parent referrals are accepted, and 80% of teacher referrals are accepted, then these rates would predict that 156 AA kids would get in (very close to the actual value), 259 Hispanic kids would get in (lower than the actual value), 1011 White kids would get in (much higher than the actual value), and 735 Asian kids would get admitted (higher than the actual value)

This is consistent with the findings that given the same test scores and GBRS, AA kids are much more likely than white kids to get admitted, and Asian kids are very slightly more likely than white kids to get admitted. None of this would be reasonable if the process were race blind. Unlike TJ admissions, though, FCPS has never claimed that AAP admissions are race blind.

From the article:
"This means that although African American and Hispanic students are still disproportionally underrepresented in Level IV services, they are actually being placed in Level IV services at higher rates than would be expected given their NNAT, CogAT, and GBRS scores. African American students with similar scores as their European American peers were identified for Level IV services at a rate of 5.7 to 1. Similarly, while Asian American students are disproportionally overrepresented in Level IV services compared to their enrollment in the overall FCPS population, this rate is close to what should be expected given their test scores. Asian American students with similar scores as their
European American peers were identified for Level IV services at a rate of 1.1 to 1"

Wouldn’t the lower white admit rate be due to high parent referral rates? Which tends to admit less kids overall?

Sorry meant to put this outside quotes: Wouldn’t the lower white admit rate be due to high parent referral rates? Which tends to admit less kids but overall?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's look at actual data. This is all from the AAP equity report and reflects the 2018 2nd grade cohort.

For AA kids, 26 were in Pool, 61 were Teacher referred, 179 were parent referred, and 154 of those got accepted to AAP
For Hispanic kids, 72 were in pool, 139 were teacher referred, 199 were parent referred, and 270 got in.
For White kids, 596 were in pool, 114 were teacher referred, 1044 were parent referred, 879 got in.
For Asian kids, 592 were in pool, 79 were teacher referred, 555 were parent referred, and 677 got in.


This means that for AA kids, while only 9.8% of the files evaluated had in pool scores, 57.9% of all AA files were found eligible. For Asian kids, 48.2% of the files evaluated had in pool scores, and yet only 55% of the files were found eligible. There was no real difference between the median GBRS scores of AAP eligible kids when broken down by race.

I don't necessarily disagree with giving a leg up to URMs in AAP admissions. If you look at the data, though, it's ludicrous to imagine that the process is race blind.

Except it's completely illegal so it would be even more ludicrous to believe that it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's look at actual data. This is all from the AAP equity report and reflects the 2018 2nd grade cohort.

For AA kids, 26 were in Pool, 61 were Teacher referred, 179 were parent referred, and 154 of those got accepted to AAP
For Hispanic kids, 72 were in pool, 139 were teacher referred, 199 were parent referred, and 270 got in.
For White kids, 596 were in pool, 114 were teacher referred, 1044 were parent referred, 879 got in.
For Asian kids, 592 were in pool, 79 were teacher referred, 555 were parent referred, and 677 got in.


This means that for AA kids, while only 9.8% of the files evaluated had in pool scores, 57.9% of all AA files were found eligible. For Asian kids, 48.2% of the files evaluated had in pool scores, and yet only 55% of the files were found eligible. There was no real difference between the median GBRS scores of AAP eligible kids when broken down by race.

I don't necessarily disagree with giving a leg up to URMs in AAP admissions. If you look at the data, though, it's ludicrous to imagine that the process is race blind.

So white kids have the lowest admit rate?

Yep. If we take the numbers further and assume that 67% of In Pool kids are accepted, 50% of parent referrals are accepted, and 80% of teacher referrals are accepted, then these rates would predict that 156 AA kids would get in (very close to the actual value), 259 Hispanic kids would get in (lower than the actual value), 1011 White kids would get in (much higher than the actual value), and 735 Asian kids would get admitted (higher than the actual value)

This is consistent with the findings that given the same test scores and GBRS, AA kids are much more likely than white kids to get admitted, and Asian kids are very slightly more likely than white kids to get admitted. None of this would be reasonable if the process were race blind. Unlike TJ admissions, though, FCPS has never claimed that AAP admissions are race blind.

From the article:
"This means that although African American and Hispanic students are still disproportionally underrepresented in Level IV services, they are actually being placed in Level IV services at higher rates than would be expected given their NNAT, CogAT, and GBRS scores. African American students with similar scores as their European American peers were identified for Level IV services at a rate of 5.7 to 1. Similarly, while Asian American students are disproportionally overrepresented in Level IV services compared to their enrollment in the overall FCPS population, this rate is close to what should be expected given their test scores. Asian American students with similar scores as their
European American peers were identified for Level IV services at a rate of 1.1 to 1"

Wouldn’t the lower white admit rate be due to high parent referral rates? Which tends to admit less kids overall?

Sorry meant to put this outside quotes: Wouldn’t the lower white admit rate be due to high parent referral rates? Which tends to admit less kids but overall?

That was already accounted for in the equity report, which compared kids across races with very similar test scores and GBRS. Also, the math above shows that even if you assume the standard rates of 67% acceptance for in-pool and 50% for parent referrals, with an additional assumption of 80% for teacher referrals, white kids are being admitted at much lower rates than predicted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's look at actual data. This is all from the AAP equity report and reflects the 2018 2nd grade cohort.

For AA kids, 26 were in Pool, 61 were Teacher referred, 179 were parent referred, and 154 of those got accepted to AAP
For Hispanic kids, 72 were in pool, 139 were teacher referred, 199 were parent referred, and 270 got in.
For White kids, 596 were in pool, 114 were teacher referred, 1044 were parent referred, 879 got in.
For Asian kids, 592 were in pool, 79 were teacher referred, 555 were parent referred, and 677 got in.


This means that for AA kids, while only 9.8% of the files evaluated had in pool scores, 57.9% of all AA files were found eligible. For Asian kids, 48.2% of the files evaluated had in pool scores, and yet only 55% of the files were found eligible. There was no real difference between the median GBRS scores of AAP eligible kids when broken down by race.

I don't necessarily disagree with giving a leg up to URMs in AAP admissions. If you look at the data, though, it's ludicrous to imagine that the process is race blind.

Except it's completely illegal so it would be even more ludicrous to believe that it is.

It isn't illegal. If it were, there would be no need for the Harvard affirmative action case currently in the Supreme Court docket. Companies, colleges, and school programs are permitted to build diverse workforces or student bodies.

Also, the selection panel members are not psychics. There is no way that they would be admitting URM kids at such vastly greater rates and generally with much lower test scores if they didn't know the race when making the selection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's look at actual data. This is all from the AAP equity report and reflects the 2018 2nd grade cohort.

For AA kids, 26 were in Pool, 61 were Teacher referred, 179 were parent referred, and 154 of those got accepted to AAP
For Hispanic kids, 72 were in pool, 139 were teacher referred, 199 were parent referred, and 270 got in.
For White kids, 596 were in pool, 114 were teacher referred, 1044 were parent referred, 879 got in.
For Asian kids, 592 were in pool, 79 were teacher referred, 555 were parent referred, and 677 got in.


This means that for AA kids, while only 9.8% of the files evaluated had in pool scores, 57.9% of all AA files were found eligible. For Asian kids, 48.2% of the files evaluated had in pool scores, and yet only 55% of the files were found eligible. There was no real difference between the median GBRS scores of AAP eligible kids when broken down by race.

I don't necessarily disagree with giving a leg up to URMs in AAP admissions. If you look at the data, though, it's ludicrous to imagine that the process is race blind.

So white kids have the lowest admit rate?

Yep. If we take the numbers further and assume that 67% of In Pool kids are accepted, 50% of parent referrals are accepted, and 80% of teacher referrals are accepted, then these rates would predict that 156 AA kids would get in (very close to the actual value), 259 Hispanic kids would get in (lower than the actual value), 1011 White kids would get in (much higher than the actual value), and 735 Asian kids would get admitted (higher than the actual value)

This is consistent with the findings that given the same test scores and GBRS, AA kids are much more likely than white kids to get admitted, and Asian kids are very slightly more likely than white kids to get admitted. None of this would be reasonable if the process were race blind. Unlike TJ admissions, though, FCPS has never claimed that AAP admissions are race blind.

From the article:
"This means that although African American and Hispanic students are still disproportionally underrepresented in Level IV services, they are actually being placed in Level IV services at higher rates than would be expected given their NNAT, CogAT, and GBRS scores. African American students with similar scores as their European American peers were identified for Level IV services at a rate of 5.7 to 1. Similarly, while Asian American students are disproportionally overrepresented in Level IV services compared to their enrollment in the overall FCPS population, this rate is close to what should be expected given their test scores. Asian American students with similar scores as their
European American peers were identified for Level IV services at a rate of 1.1 to 1"

Wouldn’t the lower white admit rate be due to high parent referral rates? Which tends to admit less kids overall?

Sorry meant to put this outside quotes: Wouldn’t the lower white admit rate be due to high parent referral rates? Which tends to admit less kids but overall?

That was already accounted for in the equity report, which compared kids across races with very similar test scores and GBRS. Also, the math above shows that even if you assume the standard rates of 67% acceptance for in-pool and 50% for parent referrals, with an additional assumption of 80% for teacher referrals, white kids are being admitted at much lower rates than predicted.

Right. I just meant that since white parents refer at twice the rate of Asian parents, it would stand to reason that white kids are admitted at slightly lower rates.