FCPS potential changes to AAP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of people would support that you need to have scores above a specific level and no appeals. Set it at what ever the 85% mark is for the region on the NNAT and the CogAT. Teacher evals for anyone who hit one score but not the other.

But I suspect that would cause people to freak out.

WISC given by GMU should always be an option. But it should be cut and dried. 130+ FSIQ and you're in. Less than that, and you're not.

Only if there is a way to pay for it for families who cannot afford it, otherwise it is an advantage to well off parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of people would support that you need to have scores above a specific level and no appeals. Set it at what ever the 85% mark is for the region on the NNAT and the CogAT. Teacher evals for anyone who hit one score but not the other.

But I suspect that would cause people to freak out.

WISC given by GMU should always be an option. But it should be cut and dried. 130+ FSIQ and you're in. Less than that, and you're not.

Only if there is a way to pay for it for families who cannot afford it, otherwise it is an advantage to well off parents.

GMU does offer a free or reduced-price WISC if you are below a certain income level, although I read somewhere it's done in a group setting. If that's true, I could imagine it might impact results. There's still the issue of getting to the testing center (time off work, transportation, language barriers, etc). I've said before that if the schools brought GMU testers onsite for kids in these situations, they would probably identify a considerable amount of lower-SES and URM students who would do well in AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought quotas were unconstitutional?

It’s complicated.

With the caveat that I have not seen the FCPS exact phrasing— quotas are generally unconstitutional. But, in holistic admissions, like AAP, URM status as a “plus factor”— one consideration out of several— is okay. And targets or goals that might or might not be reached are fine. So, if FCPS is trying to put systems in place to help reach enrollment goals for URMs, it could be fine. Especially if the goals are aspirational, rather than actual quotas. “We hope that there will be enough qualified URMs” is different than “we will take unqualified URMs is we must to hit a certain number. It’s like Harvard aggressively recruiting URMs and giving URM status special weight. Fine, as long as being a URM is not the deciding factor.

But— a lot of this law is in the context of college admissions, where there a set number of seats. AAP is different, because every qualified kid is supposed to be admitted. Unlike Harvard, a URM getting admission does not take a seat from some other, possibly more qualified kid. Your UMC white kid will still be admitted, whether or not the YS model is used to identify additional URM kids. So, I would think FCPS would get additional flexibility.

Quotas will discriminate against asian kids, period.

This quota requirement will result in asian kids with scores in the 130 to 135 range being left out of AAP, while kids of other races with scores in the 110s to 130 range are accepted.

It is completely racist.

I think it is racist to say Asian kids are smarter.

+1

[Anonymous]

It’s just a shit show to stretch to push URMs into a program that is already bloated. All it will do is degrade both the AAP and Gen Ed programs. If they hate the limited pool of black and Hispanic kids who merit admission to AAP that much, just scrap it rather than perpetuate this farce in the making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s just a shit show to stretch to push URMs into a program that is already bloated. All it will do is degrade both the AAP and Gen Ed programs. If they hate the limited pool of black and Hispanic kids who merit admission to AAP that much, just scrap it rather than perpetuate this farce in the making.

On the one hand I think they should scrap it but I have a “good” base school. How will kids fare in lower performing ES if they get rid of the aap centers?

[Anonymous]

GMU does individual testing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s just a shit show to stretch to push URMs into a program that is already bloated. All it will do is degrade both the AAP and Gen Ed programs. If they hate the limited pool of black and Hispanic kids who merit admission to AAP that much, just scrap it rather than perpetuate this farce in the making.

On the one hand I think they should scrap it but I have a “good” base school. How will kids fare in lower performing ES if they get rid of the aap centers?

I suspect that the kids at the higher FARM/lower SES schools have lower test scores for AAP then the kids at higher rated shools. I would be interested in knowing if there are program differences as well. The Center seats in those area are filled by kids and I suspect that the number of kids with scores in the 130s and above are fewer in number. Not because the kids are not as bright but because parents are less likely to read to their kids and provide the type of enrichment that wealthier and better educated parents provide. And that is going to help kids on the NNAT adn CogAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s just a shit show to stretch to push URMs into a program that is already bloated. All it will do is degrade both the AAP and Gen Ed programs. If they hate the limited pool of black and Hispanic kids who merit admission to AAP that much, just scrap it rather than perpetuate this farce in the making.

On the one hand I think they should scrap it but I have a “good” base school. How will kids fare in lower performing ES if they get rid of the aap centers?

Parents who can will leave. The only thing keeping us in our neighborhood was the ability to leave our failing base school for the AAP center ( we moved in several years before a boundary change).

[Anonymous]

Are the potential changes to this program the reason kids with 99%iles are being rejected? Has anyone heard how they plan to implement said changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are the potential changes to this program the reason kids with 99%iles are being rejected? Has anyone heard how they plan to implement said changes?

The only way to get a real picture of what is happening is to know the test scores/GBRS/comments for the kids from the different centers and level IV schools. I understand that there is not suppose to be a set number if kid for AAP but we all know that is BS. Centers have a set number of seats. They are not able to add on classrooms at a Center to accomodate kids over the number of seats that they already have. So a Center has to have a number of seats for the kids who are at the Center as their base school plus room for kids that are feed into the Center, that means kids from 1-2 other schools.

So if a center has 2 third grade classes, it can take 60 AAP kids. I am sure that FCPS has a good idea about the number of kids that stay at their base for Level IV there or language or magnate program.

If I understand the process, there are tables with five reviewers who blind review the applications. Three yeses and you are acepted.

I suspect, and this is pure conjecture, that they take that first round and put the kids into a pile for each center. If there are more accepts then seats for a Center, they break out the kids based on base school and look at if the base school has level IV or not. they work out the percentge that they expect to move to the Center and stay at the base schools. If they numbers are too high based on those projections, they conduct a second review. In that secod review they might look at some of the higher sores and see if they match up with the GBRS and comments, if they don’t, they might remove kids based on suspicion of prepping or kids that were on the border line with test scores.

Again, based on conjecture, if there is a Center that does not end up with a large enough pool of kids, they might go through the not acepted for a particular center or school and add kids, explaining some of the lower scores that get in.

There is no way that FCPS does not take the size of a class when making decisions since kids are bussed to their Center or Base School and no where else.

[Anonymous]

Our center is 4 feeder schools + the center school = 5. Is that not the norm?

Regardless, it had two very small 3rd AAP classes last year, but my child was not accepted this year despite having 3 Fs 1 C, and high in pool test scores. I don’t know any children at our school who were admitted. We are about 50% FARMs/ELL kids.

So I don’t think your theory is correct.

[Anonymous]

^^ I wonder if the demographics of the AAP classes now reflect the demographics of the school this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ I wonder if the demographics of the AAP classes now reflect the demographics of the school this year.

What does this mean?

[Anonymous]

It's long been a complaint that kids in AAP are mostly Asian and white even in schools that are not mostly white and Asian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the potential changes to this program the reason kids with 99%iles are being rejected? Has anyone heard how they plan to implement said changes?

The only way to get a real picture of what is happening is to know the test scores/GBRS/comments for the kids from the different centers and level IV schools. I understand that there is not suppose to be a set number if kid for AAP but we all know that is BS. Centers have a set number of seats. They are not able to add on classrooms at a Center to accomodate kids over the number of seats that they already have. So a Center has to have a number of seats for the kids who are at the Center as their base school plus room for kids that are feed into the Center, that means kids from 1-2 other schools.

So if a center has 2 third grade classes, it can take 60 AAP kids. I am sure that FCPS has a good idea about the number of kids that stay at their base for Level IV there or language or magnate program.

If I understand the process, there are tables with five reviewers who blind review the applications. Three yeses and you are acepted.

I suspect, and this is pure conjecture, that they take that first round and put the kids into a pile for each center. If there are more accepts then seats for a Center, they break out the kids based on base school and look at if the base school has level IV or not. they work out the percentge that they expect to move to the Center and stay at the base schools. If they numbers are too high based on those projections, they conduct a second review. In that secod review they might look at some of the higher sores and see if they match up with the GBRS and comments, if they don’t, they might remove kids based on suspicion of prepping or kids that were on the border line with test scores.

Again, based on conjecture, if there is a Center that does not end up with a large enough pool of kids, they might go through the not acepted for a particular center or school and add kids, explaining some of the lower scores that get in.

There is no way that FCPS does not take the size of a class when making decisions since kids are bussed to their Center or Base School and no where else.

That’s really not true. We are based at a center school, and the AAP teachers are numbered as a cohort, not by grade. IE there are 200 AAP kids from 3-6th so they are allotted x number of teachers for AAP. It’s not by grade. Also we’ve had as few as 2 AAP classes in a grade and as many as 4 or 5. Kids are placed and the school makes room. That’s why there are trailers. It’s a constant jigsaw puzzle.