FCPS Appeals decision are out
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Question: since the AAP program clearly isn't the answer, what is FCPS's plan to support gifted kids who might otherwise squander their development or learn self-defeating habits due to a weak program? |
Anonymous
|
Since some people might have missed it, here is a link to the AAP equity report:
https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BPD4M50C2B1F/$file/FCPS%20final%20report%2005.05.20.pdf If you scroll down to page 66, you can see average CogAT and NNAT scores of LIV eligible kids broken down by race. It's very enlightening. For the kids who got accepted to AAP - CogAT Q score: Asian mean = 130.95. AA mean: 119.8 Hispanic mean: 118.9 |
Anonymous
They don't care. They care about looking good on paper. That means, they want to reduce the achievement gap and accessibility gap. They want to make AAP look on paper like a wonderful program. They don't care that your kid is bored and learning nothing, as long as your kid passes the SOLs. If your kid is smart enough that AAP would be slow, I think they're hoping that you pull your child and either homeschool or enroll in private. |
Anonymous
Whether or not race was an explicit deciding factor or not is moot: the point is that they used subjective criteria which do not match intuition, so if we extrapolate over any large body of people, their decision criteria will necessarily reflect some pattern of bias. |
Anonymous
While at the same time, weakening the authority of the country's best and brightest to assert themselves and course correct if, some day in the future when they grow up, they find themselves face-to-face with a company/country policy which is stupid. |
Anonymous
| Can parents FOIA individual students' files w/GBRS? Has FCPS ever had an inspector general review of the program (not referrin got the Equity report)? |
Anonymous
| not referring to |
Anonymous
| I would love to see the data for race, sex, school, cogat scores, nnat scores, gbrs, dra, and wisc scores (when available) and accepted/rejected. I bet there would be some shocking trends. |
Anonymous
They'll never let you see that. |
Anonymous
Why not? Why couldn't you FOIA that information? There's no personal sensitive information in what you're asking--you're not asking for the child's name! I think it's entire possible to FOIA it, and it can't be held back as 'deliberative' especially if deliberation has already occurred and it's not a matter of national security, but rather transparency in a process against program criteria/claim. I think FCAG could easily make the request and publish their findings, if they wanted to. |
Anonymous
I actually reached out the FCAG yesterday on the process of AAP Selection and why so many with high scores were rejected. They gave me an interesting piece of info. I appreciate that they were so receptive and quickly responded. They did indicate that consultants were hired to review the AAP process earlier in the year and were very critical of the process in many areas (she didn’t say what.) They were apparently SUPPOSED to meet to review the findings and potentially review/modify the process, but never met due to COVID. So no changed were made, but may be in the future. I wonder what they may have found? At minimum, this group was very responsive and detailed in their response. |
Anonymous
For one thing, the all-volunteer membership at FCAG is busy trying to solve the school DL issue and will likely not pay attention to AAP results from this year. Second, even if they were to become aware of such large discrepancy, they may chalk it up to being COVID-related and would heavily discount any true measure from the data and they would have to consider it against prior years data. For the parents of children that had wildly high WISC and CoGAT scores, along with at least 2F on the GBRS, I suggest you get in touch with Tammy and see whether FCAG wants to take on this issue this year. |
Anonymous
For those of us interested in this would you mind copying her response to this board. Some of us are also interested in the response and it would help if we could see it rather than bombard her with the same questions. I'm sure all the parents would appreciate the kind gesture. |
Anonymous
Tammy is the one I contacted and she is the one who responded. She does respond so maybe if enough people email her, they will look into this more. I referred her to this thread. She said it was unreliable because people post anonymously. So again, maybe EMAIL HER, If enough people do, something might be able to happen! She didn’t say a whole lot more than what I posted here. I would prefer to not copy the email, as I am not sure if it’s a violation of privacy to post her email since it was only sent directly to me. She did say any investigation on whether the numbers are lower than last year will take time and won’t be anytime soon. In the meantime, make sure your child is in level III if possible (which he is.) But seriously, email her and maybe they will investigate quicker. |
Anonymous
I believe that the report addresses some of that as well. Part of that gap is explained by a gap in enrichment opportunities. Kids who have been read to, speak the language natively, attend enrichment classes or programs (tutoring or robotics or coding club) are likely to score better on those types of tests. we can kvetch all we want about them being IQ tests but additional education and stimulation are going to improve scores on tests like the NNAT, CogAT, and yes, even the WISC. They also presented some good solutions. Every school should have a full time AART. This would bolster level II and Level III programs at schools. With better Level III programs, there would be less pressure to get a kid who is strong in math but on grade level in LA or strong in LA and on grade level on math into AAP to make sure that the child's strong area receives the attention it deserves. They also suggested that each school should have its own AAP program and determinations for entrance should be made based on the individual schools population. So schools with highly involved parents invested in enrichment programs will end up with a program that looks different then the Title 1 schools. That would also address a lot of the issues with diversity. Finally, they recommend not allowing parents to submit additional material, including WISCs, and doing away with appeals. Mainly because there is a real bias towards who is likely to include additional materials and appeal. The reality is that committee members know how test scores can be increased through enrichment. My son was at an advantage because he did robotics and coding club and chess club after school. It wasn't a math program but it still teaches logical thinking and engineering and mathematical concepts in a fun way. The kid at a Title 1 school was far less likely to even have those programs offered, nevermind joining those programs. While I have no doubt that the kids scoring in the 140's on the WISC are very smart, I am not going to pretend that families that can afford the WISC have not been providing enrichment which is going to influence how their child does on the WISC. And the kid who is at a Title 1 school who scores a 118 on the CogAT could probably score a good deal higher if they had been as exposed to math and English concepts through their home environment and enrichment programs. And that is why the committee does not weigh the test scores as highly as you all wish that they would. AAP needs to be changed but I am not sure that everyone here would be thrilled if the change is that only 10% per grade level is placed in a school based AAP. Because I suspect that how ever they adjust the application process, the competition at the non Title 1 schools will become even greater then it is now. And I doubt too many of you would want to move to the areas with the Title 1 schools to insure that your kid is in AAP. |