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).
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}