Are inpool scores determined by race/ethnicity?

[Anonymous]

Yes, absolutely.

[Anonymous]

Based on the demographics of our title-1 school, I would say our results would not indicate that race is not a factor. Just top 10% of cogat in our school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Based on the demographics of our title-1 school, I would say our results would not indicate that race is not a factor. Just top 10% of cogat in our school.

Edit, "Based on the demographics of our title-1 school, I would say our results would indicate that race is not a factor. Just top 10% of cogat in our school."

[Anonymous]

The new HOPE rating is designed to be inclusive of more BIPOCs in AAP.

[Anonymous]

HOPE rating aims to undermine merit and use subjective factors for AAP selection to achieve diversity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The new HOPE rating is designed to be inclusive of more BIPOCs in AAP.

Not Asians though, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The new HOPE rating is designed to be inclusive of more BIPOCs in AAP.

Not Asians though, right?

Asians are the “wrong” minority. FCPS would prefer to exclude them from AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The new HOPE rating is designed to be inclusive of more BIPOCs in AAP.

Not Asians though, right?

Asians are the “wrong” minority. FCPS would prefer to exclude them from AAP.

Whenever there are any pushes for diversity, it is always for black diversity. It doesn’t include Hispanics or Asians or middle eastern people.

[Anonymous]

For folks interested in AAP, in case it is not on your radar, the FCPS SB will be taking into account “the Plucker Report” on AAP as it redraws the boundaries for EVERY HS pyramid (proposals released in June).

The report is here:

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BPLQKV69B096/$file/FCPS%20final%20report%2005.05.20.pdf

The link to the working meeting that references the report is here:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i04W3vvtV4w

The rezoning discussion starts at 2:47.

4:31 Reid states the software they are using can chart any program (AAP, demographics, etc) down to the individual household address.

4:32 Discusses that the school board already accepted "The Plunker Report" regarding AAP centers, and now they just need to work the recommendations into the rezoning process.

3:36 Dixon asks why did Reid not include any role for the Chief ACADEMIC Officer in the rezoning process, since this will greatly affect academics. Reid responds that the Chief Academic Officer will be brought in eventually, during the BRAC meetings.

The report is discussed on the boundary review thread here (Jeff may want to keep boundary review discussions on that thread and AAP discussions here):

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/6915/1232271.page

[Anonymous]

“Good Progress but Challenges Remain:
Achieving Equity in Fairfax County Public
Schools Advanced Academic Programs”
Jonathan A. Plucker, Ph.D, Carolyn M. Callahan, Ph.D.,
Dante D. Dixson, Ph.D., and Scott J. Peters, Ph.D.
May 5, 2020

[Anonymous]

Lots of answers to the questions raised in this thread are in the Plucker report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The new HOPE rating is designed to be inclusive of more BIPOCs in AAP.

Not Asians though, right?

Asians are the “wrong” minority. FCPS would prefer to exclude them from AAP.

Whenever there are any pushes for diversity, it is always for black diversity. It doesn’t include Hispanics or Asians or middle eastern people.

I'm not a proponent of using race as a factor at all, but they do care about Hispanics being included. Agree that they definitely work against more Asians, because they are believed to be "overrepresented" relative to their numbers in the general FCPS population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For folks interested in AAP, in case it is not on your radar, the FCPS SB will be taking into account “the Plucker Report” on AAP as it redraws the boundaries for EVERY HS pyramid (proposals released in June).

The report is here:

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BPLQKV69B096/$file/FCPS%20final%20report%2005.05.20.pdf

The link to the working meeting that references the report is here:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i04W3vvtV4w

The rezoning discussion starts at 2:47.

4:31 Reid states the software they are using can chart any program (AAP, demographics, etc) down to the individual household address.

4:32 Discusses that the school board already accepted "The Plunker Report" regarding AAP centers, and now they just need to work the recommendations into the rezoning process.

3:36 Dixon asks why did Reid not include any role for the Chief ACADEMIC Officer in the rezoning process, since this will greatly affect academics. Reid responds that the Chief Academic Officer will be brought in eventually, during the BRAC meetings.

The report is discussed on the boundary review thread here (Jeff may want to keep boundary review discussions on that thread and AAP discussions here):

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/6915/1232271.page

We've been talking about this report on this board since it was published in 2020. This isn't new information. The shock is how little from that report they actually implemented. Yes to local building norms, but no to doing away with the NNAT, even though they said they were multiple times. Yes to E3, but still not all schools have a full time AART AFAIK (unless that's new this year).

The fact that they might implement it fully is only a shock because FCPS never actually does what their expensive consultants tell them to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, absolutely.

No. Local building norms are, according to FCPS published data, the top 10% of the school's 2nd graders using some formula (straight average is suspected but no one knows for sure except the AAP office) combining CogAT and NNAT. And why they still have NNAT is beyond everyone since the report said to can it.