FCPS Appeals decision are out

[Anonymous]

Re:the limited number of spots
I don’t think it’s true, because my child’s center had significantly more AAP 5th graders than 4th or 6th, and they are constantly shifting teachers to different grade levels or from AAP to gen ed to accommodate the populations.

Also, why would enrollment caps make sense when you can just convert a gen ed classroom to an AAP one to handle the advanced learners?

[Anonymous]

just shutter the program - gen ed kids get screwed on one end by resources being thrown at ESOL and IEP kids and on the other by resources being diverted to AAP. If your kids falls in-between, they just get shuffled along

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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'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.

Of course parents are aware - that's pretty much the point of this whole thread. Holistic means test scores, GBRS, work samples, + race. For people comparing this to college admissions, that situation sucks but obviously there are other colleges. Here, a truly gifted Asian could be left out in favor of a lesser qualified student and have no other options for advanced enrichment. Great, you increased diversity, but to the detriment of a deserving child.

You could provide that advanced enrichment for your child by either enrolling them in outside programs (really, what are we talking about--Advanced Math(?), put them in AoPS or something like it, lots of online places too like JHU CTY and other online G/T programs), or doing it at home in a homeschooling environment. The point of closing the achievement gap is to actually close it when it will matter. So if your White/Asian kid is SOL, then take it upon yourself to figure out a different road for your child. Tons of Hispanic/AA parents aren't able to do so for their kids because of the systemic nature of the problem. So give it a rest! There is a national debate on this issue. Don't shake your head and say "we believe in BLM" but then not if it causes some disadvantage to our White/Asian kid because if that is the case then truly we DON'T believe in BLM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's actually not true--you're not discriminating because a significant portion of Asian Americans/White get entry into the programs. You're profiling the applicant pool to seek a more diverse class representation as suggested by the poster. It's easy to think you were being discriminated against and hence you didn't get in, but when tons of White/Asians are getting in and your Asian/White child (along with some others) didn't get into the program, it's not only a matter of race. This is why litigating reverse affirmative action doesn't work. When the two largest represented groups in any Ivy League or STEM or gifted/talented or AAP program is always White and Asians, you will never win the "it's discrimination" argument just because your White or Asian child doesn't get in and you thought their scores support placement into a school or program. You're likely correct. Your child deserves a spot because he/she met the known threshold. However, your White or Asian child didn't get in because compared to the many other White or Asian children who were accepted into the program, your child missed the mark somehow.

This is really important to understand. There are tons of kids every year who deserve a spot in tons of elite academic settings. The fact - and I use that word intentionally - that diversity is important to both educational quality and branding isn't your fault or your child's fault. But a one-dimensional student body doesn't help anyone.

It obviously helps some.

It really doesn't. The lower end of the TJ student body - ESPECIALLY the Asian American students who are in that threshold - generally does worse in the college admissions process than they would be expected to do as one of the top 15% of students at their base school.

Contrary to the popular myth, many TJ students, including Asian students, attend TJ for the unique experience of being around other highly intellectually capable and curious students instead of being bullied for being a serous academic student, taking advantage of the many unique post-AP courses offered only at TJ as well as many advanced labs/equipments and, teachers who are actually capable of teaching highly able, curious and ambitious students who often hold PhDs, JDs, from top universities and/or other relevant academic research experiences more so than playing games to gain some "advantage" in obtaining acceptances to the DCUM obsessed Ivy League schools or other top schools.

In addition, TJ grads tend to do far better at colleges/universities than base high school graduates being better prepared for college level courses and often obtaining higher gpas.

The PP isn't talking about how a TJ grad does once they enter college, but rather the disadvantage of being in the bottom 15% of TJ graduating class rather than being the top 1% of the base high school graduating class. There is empirical data on this. You may be taking all AP classes, but if you're consistently barely making the mark at TJ because the competition is that fierce, and you could be in the top 1% of every single class you took in your base high school, if you know anything about college admissions process, you know which profile student would end up with better admissions stats.

You should read the longer/main counter-point and not just focus on the ancillary/supplemental second paragraph.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Re:the limited number of spots
I don’t think it’s true, because my child’s center had significantly more AAP 5th graders than 4th or 6th, and they are constantly shifting teachers to different grade levels or from AAP to gen ed to accommodate the populations.

Also, why would enrollment caps make sense when you can just convert a gen ed classroom to an AAP one to handle the advanced learners?

Because the AAP kids could be coming from feeder schools and not part of the center base population. Then you would need two classrooms. You just don't know where the kids will come from so you try and hold the numbers. And the reason that AAP enrollment fluctuates in the different grades is because you can apply into the program at the different grades. Most center schools have a different number in 4th, 5th, or 6th. What you should be comparing is whether the 4 classrooms of 5th grade Level IV in your center school ever went to 5 classrooms and yet maintained the same number of GenEd classrooms. If the answer is no to that question, rest assured there's a cap for each.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's actually not true--you're not discriminating because a significant portion of Asian Americans/White get entry into the programs. You're profiling the applicant pool to seek a more diverse class representation as suggested by the poster. It's easy to think you were being discriminated against and hence you didn't get in, but when tons of White/Asians are getting in and your Asian/White child (along with some others) didn't get into the program, it's not only a matter of race. This is why litigating reverse affirmative action doesn't work. When the two largest represented groups in any Ivy League or STEM or gifted/talented or AAP program is always White and Asians, you will never win the "it's discrimination" argument just because your White or Asian child doesn't get in and you thought their scores support placement into a school or program. You're likely correct. Your child deserves a spot because he/she met the known threshold. However, your White or Asian child didn't get in because compared to the many other White or Asian children who were accepted into the program, your child missed the mark somehow.

Why are you so eager to label it profiling instead of discrimination? Racial profiling is usually associated with AA being stopped by police. In any case, it also has a negative connotation, so if you're trying to defend the AAP committee, it's not helping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You could provide that advanced enrichment for your child by either enrolling them in outside programs (really, what are we talking about--Advanced Math(?), put them in AoPS or something like it, lots of online places too like JHU CTY and other online G/T programs), or doing it at home in a homeschooling environment. The point of closing the achievement gap is to actually close it when it will matter. So if your White/Asian kid is SOL, then take it upon yourself to figure out a different road for your child. Tons of Hispanic/AA parents aren't able to do so for their kids because of the systemic nature of the problem. So give it a rest! There is a national debate on this issue. Don't shake your head and say "we believe in BLM" but then not if it causes some disadvantage to our White/Asian kid because if that is the case then truly we DON'T believe in BLM.

Are we concerned with closing the achievement gap in actual society, or do you just want public schools to close it on paper? The achievement gap will increase if affluent white and Asian kids don’t receive appropriate academic instruction in public school, so they instead seek out enrichment programs, tutors, or private school. Those kids will end up even more ahead than they would have been if they had been placed in AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's actually not true--you're not discriminating because a significant portion of Asian Americans/White get entry into the programs. You're profiling the applicant pool to seek a more diverse class representation as suggested by the poster. It's easy to think you were being discriminated against and hence you didn't get in, but when tons of White/Asians are getting in and your Asian/White child (along with some others) didn't get into the program, it's not only a matter of race. This is why litigating reverse affirmative action doesn't work. When the two largest represented groups in any Ivy League or STEM or gifted/talented or AAP program is always White and Asians, you will never win the "it's discrimination" argument just because your White or Asian child doesn't get in and you thought their scores support placement into a school or program. You're likely correct. Your child deserves a spot because he/she met the known threshold. However, your White or Asian child didn't get in because compared to the many other White or Asian children who were accepted into the program, your child missed the mark somehow.

This is really important to understand. There are tons of kids every year who deserve a spot in tons of elite academic settings. The fact - and I use that word intentionally - that diversity is important to both educational quality and branding isn't your fault or your child's fault. But a one-dimensional student body doesn't help anyone.

It obviously helps some.

It really doesn't. The lower end of the TJ student body - ESPECIALLY the Asian American students who are in that threshold - generally does worse in the college admissions process than they would be expected to do as one of the top 15% of students at their base school.

Contrary to the popular myth, many TJ students, including Asian students, attend TJ for the unique experience of being around other highly intellectually capable and curious students instead of being bullied for being a serous academic student, taking advantage of the many unique post-AP courses offered only at TJ as well as many advanced labs/equipments and, teachers who are actually capable of teaching highly able, curious and ambitious students who often hold PhDs, JDs, from top universities and/or other relevant academic research experiences more so than playing games to gain some "advantage" in obtaining acceptances to the DCUM obsessed Ivy League schools or other top schools.

In addition, TJ grads tend to do far better at colleges/universities than base high school graduates being better prepared for college level courses and often obtaining higher gpas.

You're replying to me here, and you're correct in pretty much everything you say here - many indeed do attend for these excellent reasons. It's certainly not a one-to-one correlation. But for most of these families, the prestige and the perceived leg up in elite college admissions - which has been largely debunked - is the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's actually not true--you're not discriminating because a significant portion of Asian Americans/White get entry into the programs. You're profiling the applicant pool to seek a more diverse class representation as suggested by the poster. It's easy to think you were being discriminated against and hence you didn't get in, but when tons of White/Asians are getting in and your Asian/White child (along with some others) didn't get into the program, it's not only a matter of race. This is why litigating reverse affirmative action doesn't work. When the two largest represented groups in any Ivy League or STEM or gifted/talented or AAP program is always White and Asians, you will never win the "it's discrimination" argument just because your White or Asian child doesn't get in and you thought their scores support placement into a school or program. You're likely correct. Your child deserves a spot because he/she met the known threshold. However, your White or Asian child didn't get in because compared to the many other White or Asian children who were accepted into the program, your child missed the mark somehow.

This is really important to understand. There are tons of kids every year who deserve a spot in tons of elite academic settings. The fact - and I use that word intentionally - that diversity is important to both educational quality and branding isn't your fault or your child's fault. But a one-dimensional student body doesn't help anyone.

No one is arguing against diversity. But what do you tell that White or Asian child who is smart enough to be in AAP, but didn't get in due to race? Too bad, you'll just have to stay in gen ed and not reach your potential?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re:the limited number of spots
I don’t think it’s true, because my child’s center had significantly more AAP 5th graders than 4th or 6th, and they are constantly shifting teachers to different grade levels or from AAP to gen ed to accommodate the populations.

Also, why would enrollment caps make sense when you can just convert a gen ed classroom to an AAP one to handle the advanced learners?

Because the AAP kids could be coming from feeder schools and not part of the center base population. Then you would need two classrooms. You just don't know where the kids will come from so you try and hold the numbers. And the reason that AAP enrollment fluctuates in the different grades is because you can apply into the program at the different grades. Most center schools have a different number in 4th, 5th, or 6th. What you should be comparing is whether the 4 classrooms of 5th grade Level IV in your center school ever went to 5 classrooms and yet maintained the same number of GenEd classrooms. If the answer is no to that question, rest assured there's a cap for each.

6th grade went from 3 to 4 classrooms, while gen ed remained at 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's actually not true--you're not discriminating because a significant portion of Asian Americans/White get entry into the programs. You're profiling the applicant pool to seek a more diverse class representation as suggested by the poster. It's easy to think you were being discriminated against and hence you didn't get in, but when tons of White/Asians are getting in and your Asian/White child (along with some others) didn't get into the program, it's not only a matter of race. This is why litigating reverse affirmative action doesn't work. When the two largest represented groups in any Ivy League or STEM or gifted/talented or AAP program is always White and Asians, you will never win the "it's discrimination" argument just because your White or Asian child doesn't get in and you thought their scores support placement into a school or program. You're likely correct. Your child deserves a spot because he/she met the known threshold. However, your White or Asian child didn't get in because compared to the many other White or Asian children who were accepted into the program, your child missed the mark somehow.

Why are you so eager to label it profiling instead of discrimination? Racial profiling is usually associated with AA being stopped by police. In any case, it also has a negative connotation, so if you're trying to defend the AAP committee, it's not helping.

I'm not the poster who noted it as "racial profiling," but he/she is correct. You've only heard about racial profiling in the police context because that is what circulates in media, but it's a much broader term that is used in advertising, admissions, and even in corporate America (I work in HR for a Fortune 10) and we screen our numbers and it is profiling. It's a generic term to indicate a review of ethnic representation without engaging in discriminatory practices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

"homogeneous group of students who are indistinguishable from one another"

Well you've revealed your bias. You're not going to be able to make a convincing case for your views after that. Randomly tossing in words like "correctly" and "undeniably" isn't going to fool anyone.

I mean, that's what college admissions officers say about TJ and its students, and that's why you have hundreds of disillusioned seniors walking around the building every December and March after elite colleges send our their early and regular admissions offers. They follow the same path, and as such they're indistinguishable from one another on paper. It works for getting into TJ (for now) but it doesn't work for getting into elite schools.

[Anonymous]

^ Also, if there is a cap, then FCPS needs to eliminate the idea that kids maintain eligibility through 8th grade no matter how they do. If there are limited seats, they need to remove kids who can’t handle AAP and instead fill those seats with kids who can.

[Anonymous]

For those who approve of the racial profiling:
What is your plan for accommodating Asian or white kids who test at a year or more above grade level in math and language arts? Should they sit in gen ed classrooms, tracked to on-grade-level classes, and learning nothing in the name of diversity? What’s the plan for kids pushed into AAP who can’t handle the advanced math or are on/below grade level in reading?

If the county had appropriate plans for handling advanced learners in gen ed, people would be less obsessed with getting their kids into AAP. AAP also needs to have plans for on or below grade level kids that don’t amount to slowing down AAP for everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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'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.

Of course parents are aware - that's pretty much the point of this whole thread. Holistic means test scores, GBRS, work samples, + race. For people comparing this to college admissions, that situation sucks but obviously there are other colleges. Here, a truly gifted Asian could be left out in favor of a lesser qualified student and have no other options for advanced enrichment. Great, you increased diversity, but to the detriment of a deserving child.

You could provide that advanced enrichment for your child by either enrolling them in outside programs (really, what are we talking about--Advanced Math(?), put them in AoPS or something like it, lots of online places too like JHU CTY and other online G/T programs), or doing it at home in a homeschooling environment. The point of closing the achievement gap is to actually close it when it will matter. So if your White/Asian kid is SOL, then take it upon yourself to figure out a different road for your child. Tons of Hispanic/AA parents aren't able to do so for their kids because of the systemic nature of the problem. So give it a rest! There is a national debate on this issue. Don't shake your head and say "we believe in BLM" but then not if it causes some disadvantage to our White/Asian kid because if that is the case then truly we DON'T believe in BLM.

What are you referring to when you say systemic nature of the problem? Seems like that's what needs should be addressed in order to increase diversity. And you are making the assumption that everyone in this situation has the ability to pay for all these outside programs.

You're really reaching now to bring up BLM. These issues are not related.