FCPS Appeals decision are out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Why would it have to be the result of intentional targeting, though? All it would take would be for the reviewer to be someone who was never particularly smart and who believed that school is difficult and nebulous, and to empathize less with kids who find things easy. They'd fall for the premise that kids who do exceptionally well aren't natural and were probably prepped, which would lead to an apparent bias against groups which have much higher representations at higher score levels.

My knee jerk reaction is that since race is listed on the first page of the form, it would be difficult for a panel member to review the file without letting their own prejudices color their viewpoint. We've already seen on this forum that if a white kid does extracurricular math, it's great that she's following her passion, but if an Asian kid does the same thing, he's a prep robot with parents making him do extra math. I wouldn't at all be surprised if certain Asian ethnicities in certain zip codes are targeted, especially if the committee thinks that it's likely that the kid attended CogAT prep camp. On the flip side, I would imagine that URMs are getting in with lower scores because FCPS wants to increase membership from those groups and is instructing the panel members to look for any sign that the kid could benefit from AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I also suspect that the number of kids with high scores not accepted is very small. I do think the County should be able to provide something specific so that it is something that you can look to address if you reapply. But I don't think that the County is targeting specific kids or groups to exclude.

I definitely agree that no group is being intentionally targeted. But if the screening is too reliant on subjective criteria, then factors like whether the teacher likes the child's smile (on the classroom/GBRS side) or whether their name reflects an ethnicity the reviewer can empathize with (on the screening side) are always at risk to play a role.

I disagree. Someone posted this earlier:

"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"

Asians have to meet a higher standard. Why is race included in the application? And I'm not just talking about names reflecting ethnicity - there is a Federal Ethnic Code field on the screening sheet.

It's outrageous that the AAP board members can make these decisions without having to explain or be held accountable. All anyone gets is the "holistic" canned response, which judging from the rejections seen here means arbitrary or even discriminatory.

THIS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I also suspect that the number of kids with high scores not accepted is very small. I do think the County should be able to provide something specific so that it is something that you can look to address if you reapply. But I don't think that the County is targeting specific kids or groups to exclude.

I definitely agree that no group is being intentionally targeted. But if the screening is too reliant on subjective criteria, then factors like whether the teacher likes the child's smile (on the classroom/GBRS side) or whether their name reflects an ethnicity the reviewer can empathize with (on the screening side) are always at risk to play a role.

I disagree. Someone posted this earlier:

"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"

Asians have to meet a higher standard. Why is race included in the application? And I'm not just talking about names reflecting ethnicity - there is a Federal Ethnic Code field on the screening sheet.

It's outrageous that the AAP board members can make these decisions without having to explain or be held accountable. All anyone gets is the "holistic" canned response, which judging from the rejections seen here means arbitrary or even discriminatory.

THIS.

Higher and/or different standards, maybe. In earlier posts, there was a theory that Asian-American kids with higher scores were more likely to be rejected if their GBRS is also not as high. FCPS wants the testing gap to decrease, so removing Asian-American kids with lower scores wouldn't accomplish this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I also suspect that the number of kids with high scores not accepted is very small. I do think the County should be able to provide something specific so that it is something that you can look to address if you reapply. But I don't think that the County is targeting specific kids or groups to exclude.

I definitely agree that no group is being intentionally targeted. But if the screening is too reliant on subjective criteria, then factors like whether the teacher likes the child's smile (on the classroom/GBRS side) or whether their name reflects an ethnicity the reviewer can empathize with (on the screening side) are always at risk to play a role.

I disagree. Someone posted this earlier:

"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"

Asians have to meet a higher standard. Why is race included in the application? And I'm not just talking about names reflecting ethnicity - there is a Federal Ethnic Code field on the screening sheet.

It's outrageous that the AAP board members can make these decisions without having to explain or be held accountable. All anyone gets is the "holistic" canned response, which judging from the rejections seen here means arbitrary or even discriminatory.

THIS.

Asian Americans have been subjected to this for decades in admissions to selective high schools and colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I also suspect that the number of kids with high scores not accepted is very small. I do think the County should be able to provide something specific so that it is something that you can look to address if you reapply. But I don't think that the County is targeting specific kids or groups to exclude.

I definitely agree that no group is being intentionally targeted. But if the screening is too reliant on subjective criteria, then factors like whether the teacher likes the child's smile (on the classroom/GBRS side) or whether their name reflects an ethnicity the reviewer can empathize with (on the screening side) are always at risk to play a role.

I disagree. Someone posted this earlier:

"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"

Asians have to meet a higher standard. Why is race included in the application? And I'm not just talking about names reflecting ethnicity - there is a Federal Ethnic Code field on the screening sheet.

It's outrageous that the AAP board members can make these decisions without having to explain or be held accountable. All anyone gets is the "holistic" canned response, which judging from the rejections seen here means arbitrary or even discriminatory.

THIS.

Asian Americans have been subjected to this for decades in admissions to selective high schools and colleges.

The above statement is the new norm. Asian Americans (including South Asians) and to some extent kids from non-Hispanic White origin have a biased entry into tier 1 programs in schools, including college admissions. Over the course of the last 3-4 decades, the tides have turned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I also suspect that the number of kids with high scores not accepted is very small. I do think the County should be able to provide something specific so that it is something that you can look to address if you reapply. But I don't think that the County is targeting specific kids or groups to exclude.

I definitely agree that no group is being intentionally targeted. But if the screening is too reliant on subjective criteria, then factors like whether the teacher likes the child's smile (on the classroom/GBRS side) or whether their name reflects an ethnicity the reviewer can empathize with (on the screening side) are always at risk to play a role.

I disagree. Someone posted this earlier:

"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"

Asians have to meet a higher standard. Why is race included in the application? And I'm not just talking about names reflecting ethnicity - there is a Federal Ethnic Code field on the screening sheet.

It's outrageous that the AAP board members can make these decisions without having to explain or be held accountable. All anyone gets is the "holistic" canned response, which judging from the rejections seen here means arbitrary or even discriminatory.

THIS.

Asian Americans have been subjected to this for decades in admissions to selective high schools and colleges.

Indeed. Many of these schools (not yet to include TJ) have recognized that the value of their education and their brand increases when legitimate diversity exists within their student body, in response to numerous peer-reviewed studies that confirm this assertion. They have successfully transitioned towards a superior model that seeks to create a stronger class of students rather than simply evaluating each individual student against identical criteria - which does nothing but create a homogeneous group of students who are indistinguishable from one another.

Harvard University could very easily select the 1700 or so students who come closest to reaching some imagined "ideal" criteria based on an artificial construct of what "merit" is - solely referencing GPA, board scores, and resumes. They correctly understand that their classrooms will be more dynamic and their students will be better prepared to serve and change the world if their students come from different backgrounds and perspectives.

It doesn't inherently help a basketball team to win games to have players from diverse perspectives. But it demonstrably and undeniably helps students to prepare to change the world to have students around them from diverse perspectives.

[Anonymous]

Also, as someone mentioned Asians includes South Asian. There is really no distinction. We are all Asian. We are Indian and on the GBRS, the ethnicity is "Asian." Regardless, with South Asians it is the same story.

[Anonymous]

If anyone is willing to understand why it's important to close the achievement gap between Hispanics/African Americans, they should read this first: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Industries/Public%20Sector/Our%20Insights/The%20economic%20impact%20of%20closing%20the%20racial%20wealth%20gap/The-economic-impact-of-closing-the-racial-wealth-gap-final.pdf

It's easy to say "not our problem," but what FCPS is trying to do has some merit. It starts with closing the gap in the years that make a difference to the trajectory of the child's life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It doesn't inherently help a basketball team to win games to have players from diverse perspectives. But it demonstrably and undeniably helps students to prepare to change the world to have students around them from diverse perspectives.

Kind of. I doubt Harvard looks for diversity when admitting kids to its math program. Diverse perspectives are highly important for humanities and social studies, but kind of irrelevant in STEM fields. If the main point of TJ is to be an elite STEM school, then I'm not sure that the diverse perspectives help much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If anyone is willing to understand why it's important to close the achievement gap between Hispanics/African Americans, they should read this first: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Industries/Public%20Sector/Our%20Insights/The%20economic%20impact%20of%20closing%20the%20racial%20wealth%20gap/The-economic-impact-of-closing-the-racial-wealth-gap-final.pdf

It's easy to say "not our problem," but what FCPS is trying to do has some merit. It starts with closing the gap in the years that make a difference to the trajectory of the child's life.

I don't think anyone disagrees about the importance of closing the achievement gap. The problem is that you can close the gap two ways: you can lift AAs and Hispanics up, or you can pull Asians and whites down. FCPS seems to be choosing the latter path and not the former. Enrolling more AAs and Hispanics in AAP or TJ could have merit. Enrolling fewer Asians and whites, even if they show all signs that they would be successful in the program is just dragging them down.

I fully support expanding FCPS pre-K, providing free before and after school care/tutoring for elementary, strengthening Young Scholars programs, providing free enrichment camps, and providing more math and reading resource teachers. Ideally, a lot of early interventions and early programming would lead to more URMs having the credentials to be successful in AAP or TJ. Cramming URMs into a program for which they have not been prepared and don't show the signs that they would be successful, or arbitrarily rejecting Asian or white kids in the name of racial balance is not the way to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It doesn't inherently help a basketball team to win games to have players from diverse perspectives. But it demonstrably and undeniably helps students to prepare to change the world to have students around them from diverse perspectives.

Kind of. I doubt Harvard looks for diversity when admitting kids to its math program. Diverse perspectives are highly important for humanities and social studies, but kind of irrelevant in STEM fields. If the main point of TJ is to be an elite STEM school, then I'm not sure that the diverse perspectives help much.

I would agree with you if the point of studying math were just to do math. But given that the point of it, and other STEM fields and of course in theory TJ, is to serve the best interests of humanity, diverse perspectives are a non-negotiable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It doesn't inherently help a basketball team to win games to have players from diverse perspectives. But it demonstrably and undeniably helps students to prepare to change the world to have students around them from diverse perspectives.

Kind of. I doubt Harvard looks for diversity when admitting kids to its math program. Diverse perspectives are highly important for humanities and social studies, but kind of irrelevant in STEM fields. If the main point of TJ is to be an elite STEM school, then I'm not sure that the diverse perspectives help much.

I would agree with you if the point of studying math were just to do math. But given that the point of it, and other STEM fields and of course in theory TJ, is to serve the best interests of humanity, diverse perspectives are a non-negotiable.

Yes but the perspective of the Asian Americans is not taken into account so there is no diverse perspective and there is only the perspectives of the preferred minority groups or the perspectives of the groups with adequate political clout. It is not in the interest of humanity to have Asian Americans be subjected to blatant racial discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It doesn't inherently help a basketball team to win games to have players from diverse perspectives. But it demonstrably and undeniably helps students to prepare to change the world to have students around them from diverse perspectives.

Kind of. I doubt Harvard looks for diversity when admitting kids to its math program. Diverse perspectives are highly important for humanities and social studies, but kind of irrelevant in STEM fields. If the main point of TJ is to be an elite STEM school, then I'm not sure that the diverse perspectives help much.

I would agree with you if the point of studying math were just to do math. But given that the point of it, and other STEM fields and of course in theory TJ, is to serve the best interests of humanity, diverse perspectives are a non-negotiable.

Yes but the perspective of the Asian Americans is not taken into account so there is no diverse perspective and there is only the perspectives of the preferred minority groups or the perspectives of the groups with adequate political clout. It is not in the interest of humanity to have Asian Americans be subjected to blatant racial discrimination.

It's not actually discriminatory as much as it is profiling. Asian Americans are by far the most represented in most STEM fields, irrespective of the school or program you're discussing. So, you can't say that it meets the measure of being discriminatory. But certainly many Asian Americans fall out of the student body based on racial profiling of the class and the desire to seek a more "diverse" class in the school or program.

To the same point on the McKinsey article's poster and the response, I agree that FCPS is trying to close the achievement gap and that there are two ways to go about it. The immediate tool is by limiting or profiling the applicants to the AAP program and selecting a representative group of Hispanics/AA/White/Asians who may do very well in the Level IV program keeping in mind that it is not truly a gifted/talented program, but works more like an honors program. If you were to think about an ideal class makeup for the Level IV, you could say that a "diverse" group may be White/Asians who fall between the +1 and +2 SD, while for Hispanic/AA it's kids who are in the +1 SD or better. For the White/Asian kids who are clearly in the +2 - +3 SD, they are likely screened out for the service. Is it fair? The answer to that is "it depends." For the White/Asians who are in that category and got rejected, it may not seem fair. For the Hispanic/AA kids who were allowed into the program because the empty seat, they would see it as very fair.

I agree that it would help if FCPS were to provide a adequate summary of the "holistic" review. Having worked in Admissions most of my career, I can tell you that "holistic" refers to a lot more than just scores on a test, GBRS, recommendations or work samples. It certainly refers to a program's "holistic" demographic profile of students. Most people are aware of this when it comes to college admissions because quotas are inherently understood by parents. It seems though that FCPS parents are completely unaware that quotas could also be heavily in play at the elementary school level when program measures are evaluated for closing the achievement gap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It doesn't inherently help a basketball team to win games to have players from diverse perspectives. But it demonstrably and undeniably helps students to prepare to change the world to have students around them from diverse perspectives.

Kind of. I doubt Harvard looks for diversity when admitting kids to its math program. Diverse perspectives are highly important for humanities and social studies, but kind of irrelevant in STEM fields. If the main point of TJ is to be an elite STEM school, then I'm not sure that the diverse perspectives help much.

I would agree with you if the point of studying math were just to do math. But given that the point of it, and other STEM fields and of course in theory TJ, is to serve the best interests of humanity, diverse perspectives are a non-negotiable.

Yes but the perspective of the Asian Americans is not taken into account so there is no diverse perspective and there is only the perspectives of the preferred minority groups or the perspectives of the groups with adequate political clout. It is not in the interest of humanity to have Asian Americans be subjected to blatant racial discrimination.

It is a racial discrimination if the decision is based on race.

It's not actually discriminatory as much as it is profiling. Asian Americans are by far the most represented in most STEM fields, irrespective of the school or program you're discussing. So, you can't say that it meets the measure of being discriminatory. But certainly many Asian Americans fall out of the student body based on racial profiling of the class and the desire to seek a more "diverse" class in the school or program.

To the same point on the McKinsey article's poster and the response, I agree that FCPS is trying to close the achievement gap and that there are two ways to go about it. The immediate tool is by limiting or profiling the applicants to the AAP program and selecting a representative group of Hispanics/AA/White/Asians who may do very well in the Level IV program keeping in mind that it is not truly a gifted/talented program, but works more like an honors program. If you were to think about an ideal class makeup for the Level IV, you could say that a "diverse" group may be White/Asians who fall between the +1 and +2 SD, while for Hispanic/AA it's kids who are in the +1 SD or better. For the White/Asian kids who are clearly in the +2 - +3 SD, they are likely screened out for the service. Is it fair? The answer to that is "it depends." For the White/Asians who are in that category and got rejected, it may not seem fair. For the Hispanic/AA kids who were allowed into the program because the empty seat, they would see it as very fair.

I agree that it would help if FCPS were to provide a adequate summary of the "holistic" review. Having worked in Admissions most of my career, I can tell you that "holistic" refers to a lot more than just scores on a test, GBRS, recommendations or work samples. It certainly refers to a program's "holistic" demographic profile of students. Most people are aware of this when it comes to college admissions because quotas are inherently understood by parents. It seems though that FCPS parents are completely unaware that quotas could also be heavily in play at the elementary school level when program measures are evaluated for closing the achievement gap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It doesn't inherently help a basketball team to win games to have players from diverse perspectives. But it demonstrably and undeniably helps students to prepare to change the world to have students around them from diverse perspectives.

Kind of. I doubt Harvard looks for diversity when admitting kids to its math program. Diverse perspectives are highly important for humanities and social studies, but kind of irrelevant in STEM fields. If the main point of TJ is to be an elite STEM school, then I'm not sure that the diverse perspectives help much.

I would agree with you if the point of studying math were just to do math. But given that the point of it, and other STEM fields and of course in theory TJ, is to serve the best interests of humanity, diverse perspectives are a non-negotiable.

Yes but the perspective of the Asian Americans is not taken into account so there is no diverse perspective and there is only the perspectives of the preferred minority groups or the perspectives of the groups with adequate political clout. It is not in the interest of humanity to have Asian Americans be subjected to blatant racial discrimination.

No one is suggesting eliminating Asian Americans from the pool of candidates for these programs - indeed, they will almost certainly always be remarkably over-represented in them. What is being suggested is that the programs would be significantly more robust if they were somewhat less over-represented than they currently are.