FCPS Appeals decision are out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

FCPS is not stating that they are incapable or unwilling to educate your highly gifted kid. You just want the kid placed into LIV while the district found your kid eligible for LIII. You may say the kid's GBRS shouldn't factor as much as the WISC score or that their classroom work samples weren't up to standard because they are "bored," but you'll lose the fight right there. You're conflating the issue. Being found ineligible for LIV is not a denial of service. Either way, you should seek out some programs for your child since they are in the truly gifted range. You can start with FCAG. They have a lot of resources they can point you to.

You clearly don't understand IQ tests or what a score of 140+ even means. A 140 WISC is very rare and means that the kid is undoubtedly gifted and undoubtedly at the top of the FCPS population. A GBRS of 4 Cs just means that the kid is an above average, neat, compliant, teacher's pet. It is flat out ridiculous to suggest that GBRS should outweigh the WISC. You're embarrassing yourself by even making that argument. Those high IQ kids need gifted programming. Your 120 IQ, high GBRS kid is a garden variety upper middle class kid and would thrive just fine in gen ed. I know you're trying to cling to that high GBRS as a sign that your kid is something special, but it's just not true.

I'm not saying that the GBRS should be weighed more than the WISC. I fully understand how rare a WISC score of ~150 is, as I keep noting that in every response. Most kids in LIV are not in that same league. I'm saying that LIV ineligibility is not a denial of service. I'm saying since FCPS does not publish a threshold on paper, you're banking on eligibility where one does not exist. Because of that, you'll lose the fight. You're conflating that a WISC score of 140+ is an automatic eligibility criteria for LIV. But that's not what FCPS uses for eligibility decision-making. I think someone posted the AAP guidance document. You should review that carefully. There is a reason why FCPS isn't using a blanket number for automatic entry into the program.

This has been said by many posters here so why is it that FCPS doesn't publish a threshold over which a kid automatically qualifies. Has anyone brought this up to the School Board? What's the rationale for being so vague? Seems like we are all jumping on the poster for raising a valid issue. We should all be looking to the School Board to understand why there is this opaque nature in who gets into Level IV.

[Anonymous]

There is a white family in my neighborhood that brought a lawyer to the table. Her kid was smart, not nearly that high IQ though.
One meeting with the lawyer and next thing the kid is at the LIV center.

Lawyer up folks. Get your friends together and do it if necessary. Demand transparency and guidelines. This is public school, the public has a say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not saying that the GBRS should be weighed more than the WISC. I fully understand how rare a WISC score of ~150 is, as I keep noting that in every response. Most kids in LIV are not in that same league. I'm saying that LIV ineligibility is not a denial of service.

Then FCPS needs to publish something indicating how they're meeting the VA gifted mandate for those clearly gifted kids who are not going to receive LIV services. They are mandated by law to provide gifted services for gifted children. They can't just arbitrarily decide that kids with high IQs aren't gifted, nor can they nebulously insist that they're somehow meeting the gifted mandate by giving those kids gen ed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not saying that the GBRS should be weighed more than the WISC. I fully understand how rare a WISC score of ~150 is, as I keep noting that in every response. Most kids in LIV are not in that same league. I'm saying that LIV ineligibility is not a denial of service.

Then FCPS needs to publish something indicating how they're meeting the VA gifted mandate for those clearly gifted kids who are not going to receive LIV services. They are mandated by law to provide gifted services for gifted children. They can't just arbitrarily decide that kids with high IQs aren't gifted, nor can they nebulously insist that they're somehow meeting the gifted mandate by giving those kids gen ed.

This is the crux of the issue right here.

My understanding is that the GBRS was implemented to catch the kids who didn't test well for whatever reason, but it sounds like in practice it's keeping kids out of AAP who fall under the mandate for gifted services based on IQ scores, which the CogAT is a proxy for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a white family in my neighborhood that brought a lawyer to the table. Her kid was smart, not nearly that high IQ though.
One meeting with the lawyer and next thing the kid is at the LIV center.

Lawyer up folks. Get your friends together and do it if necessary. Demand transparency and guidelines. This is public school, the public has a say.

Any info on who the lawyer was?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not saying that the GBRS should be weighed more than the WISC. I fully understand how rare a WISC score of ~150 is, as I keep noting that in every response. Most kids in LIV are not in that same league. I'm saying that LIV ineligibility is not a denial of service.

Then FCPS needs to publish something indicating how they're meeting the VA gifted mandate for those clearly gifted kids who are not going to receive LIV services. They are mandated by law to provide gifted services for gifted children. They can't just arbitrarily decide that kids with high IQs aren't gifted, nor can they nebulously insist that they're somehow meeting the gifted mandate by giving those kids gen ed.

This is the crux of the issue right here.

My understanding is that the GBRS was implemented to catch the kids who didn't test well for whatever reason, but it sounds like in practice it's keeping kids out of AAP who fall under the mandate for gifted services based on IQ scores, which the CogAT is a proxy for.

DP. This. Also, I really don't understand OPs who are saying that 140-150+ kids should rely on something other than AAP. There is no other option within the FCPS system. Parents of extremely gifted children shouldn't have to find a completely separate path to educating their children. Supplement? Sure. But home schooling and private schools may not be on the table.

I have two 140-150+ children. Older one is entering her third-year of full-time AAP and is THRIVING. Do we supplement with her? Yes, with music, languages, STEAM etc. But, at its core, the full-time AAP is the foundation for her education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why does closing the achievement gap mean RAISING the achievement gap for one group and lowering it for another? Isn't that taking it even further apart?? LOWER it for the URM. But don't RAISE it for Asian Americans!

You're not actually raising the threshold for the Asian or White child. You're creating a bell curve for White population and Asian population, and certain White or Asian children may be 'screened out' based on a peer comparison because they are on the very high end +2SD or into +3SD (as a WISC score of 150+ suggests) or didn't receive as good of an overall rating as compared to the other White or Asians against which they were compared. For the +3SD, the parents should really be looking elsewhere as some posters have noted here. FCPS is not the right setting to serve these children and hopefully the parents have some understanding of this. The reason for the screening out the high end of the curve is to serve the White, Asian, Hispanic and AA population that are relatively comparable. Though even in this scenario, the population of White and Asian accepted into the program score much higher than Hispanic and Asian.

All of this is also largely predicated on demographics of the school, both for feeder and center schools. If you're in Colvin Run or Churchill territory, you're looking at Hispanic/AA population at approx 5% and 10%, respectively, for the center schools and the feeder schools. Think about that! We are talking combined ethnicities. You have a very small pool of Hispanic or African Americans who will be considered for AAP. Compare that to Mosby Woods and the feeder schools for MW, where the range of Hispanic/AA go from 20% to 35% (sometimes equivalent to the number of Asians). Is it possible that FCPS screened out more Asian or White kids in Mosby Woods center based LIV program compared to that of Colvin Run or Churchill? It's most likely what occurred. As an Asian or White in the MW center/feeder schools, your competition is also a lot stiffer. You're competing for a seat that is being challenged by not only more Hispanic/AA representation (since FCPS won't be able to meet their quotas in schools like Colvin Run or Churchill or other few), but also a stiffer White and Asian population. Your Asian kid might have gotten a 140 CoGAT and 2F. The other Asian child received a 136 on CoGAT but a 4Cs. My bet is that the latter Asian child getting through but the former getting rejected. You may follow up with the WISC, but if most of the spots are already gone at the center, it makes it hard for the appeals process to work in your favor. Even with a high WISC score. I think that's why when FCPS says they look at AAP admissions "holistically," we really should think much bigger picture than an individual's packet. Their holistic approach is noting some much larger.

So now people are arguing that some Asians should be denied AAP due to being overqualified? As if they would be better off in Gen Ed? Or should they leave FCPS? They cannot be served in AAP because AAP needs to be watered down in order to accomodate other populations. Or as someone else noted earlier, excluding these applicants is the easy solution to closing the score gap of accepted students by race.

I get that some Asians and Whites are upset that their child tested as a high achiever or perhaps even truly gifted and didn't get into AAP LIV. That's life! It's no different than what your kid could experience applying to TJ and not getting in or applying to Harvard/Princeton/Yale and not getting in. It happens. And it happens a lot in life. Suck it up. Accept it. Understand that there is inherently limited space and that FCPS is looking at race (especially when the program is audited for equity gap). And, in a fully holistic review of what FCPS wants in its class of this year and what was in your child's package, something was triggered which left your child out of luck. You job now is to figure out how you can help your child to stay on their path of success. You would have had to do that anyway if your child is truly gifted. If you want to try again next year, go for it. FCPS allows you that ability. You may or may not be successful, but don't wallow in the rejection. It's moot. Figure out a different way to help your child. It's not that hard. (At least not at this stage. It will get much harder if your child continues on their gifted path so best to get started sooner rather than later.)

Nobody needs or wants parenting advice from you, and this isn't the point of this thread anyway. I am not going to teach my child to suck up and accept discrimination. Only an entitled person who never faced adversity would say something like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why does closing the achievement gap mean RAISING the achievement gap for one group and lowering it for another? Isn't that taking it even further apart?? LOWER it for the URM. But don't RAISE it for Asian Americans!

You're not actually raising the threshold for the Asian or White child. You're creating a bell curve for White population and Asian population, and certain White or Asian children may be 'screened out' based on a peer comparison because they are on the very high end +2SD or into +3SD (as a WISC score of 150+ suggests) or didn't receive as good of an overall rating as compared to the other White or Asians against which they were compared. For the +3SD, the parents should really be looking elsewhere as some posters have noted here. FCPS is not the right setting to serve these children and hopefully the parents have some understanding of this. The reason for the screening out the high end of the curve is to serve the White, Asian, Hispanic and AA population that are relatively comparable. Though even in this scenario, the population of White and Asian accepted into the program score much higher than Hispanic and Asian.

All of this is also largely predicated on demographics of the school, both for feeder and center schools. If you're in Colvin Run or Churchill territory, you're looking at Hispanic/AA population at approx 5% and 10%, respectively, for the center schools and the feeder schools. Think about that! We are talking combined ethnicities. You have a very small pool of Hispanic or African Americans who will be considered for AAP. Compare that to Mosby Woods and the feeder schools for MW, where the range of Hispanic/AA go from 20% to 35% (sometimes equivalent to the number of Asians). Is it possible that FCPS screened out more Asian or White kids in Mosby Woods center based LIV program compared to that of Colvin Run or Churchill? It's most likely what occurred. As an Asian or White in the MW center/feeder schools, your competition is also a lot stiffer. You're competing for a seat that is being challenged by not only more Hispanic/AA representation (since FCPS won't be able to meet their quotas in schools like Colvin Run or Churchill or other few), but also a stiffer White and Asian population. Your Asian kid might have gotten a 140 CoGAT and 2F. The other Asian child received a 136 on CoGAT but a 4Cs. My bet is that the latter Asian child getting through but the former getting rejected. You may follow up with the WISC, but if most of the spots are already gone at the center, it makes it hard for the appeals process to work in your favor. Even with a high WISC score. I think that's why when FCPS says they look at AAP admissions "holistically," we really should think much bigger picture than an individual's packet. Their holistic approach is noting some much larger.

So now people are arguing that some Asians should be denied AAP due to being overqualified? As if they would be better off in Gen Ed? Or should they leave FCPS? They cannot be served in AAP because AAP needs to be watered down in order to accomodate other populations. Or as someone else noted earlier, excluding these applicants is the easy solution to closing the score gap of accepted students by race.

I get that some Asians and Whites are upset that their child tested as a high achiever or perhaps even truly gifted and didn't get into AAP LIV. That's life! It's no different than what your kid could experience applying to TJ and not getting in or applying to Harvard/Princeton/Yale and not getting in. It happens. And it happens a lot in life. Suck it up. Accept it. Understand that there is inherently limited space and that FCPS is looking at race (especially when the program is audited for equity gap). And, in a fully holistic review of what FCPS wants in its class of this year and what was in your child's package, something was triggered which left your child out of luck. You job now is to figure out how you can help your child to stay on their path of success. You would have had to do that anyway if your child is truly gifted. If you want to try again next year, go for it. FCPS allows you that ability. You may or may not be successful, but don't wallow in the rejection. It's moot. Figure out a different way to help your child. It's not that hard. (At least not at this stage. It will get much harder if your child continues on their gifted path so best to get started sooner rather than later.)

If FCPS isn’t admitting gifted children into AAP, which legally serves as its gifted program, then it needs to provide gifted services to this population of students. And as a taxpayer and parent of two kids not in AAP, it is pretty appalling that we are spending the amount of money and resources on AAP and excluding kids if the program isn’t even doing what it is designed to do.

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/LocalPlanGifted2016to2021.pdf

FCPS is deciding eligibility for services based on factors without any clear thresholds. FCPS can determine that your child was eligible for LIII but not LIV. As a taxpayer, you are not entitled to LIV services just because you believe your child will benefit from it. Similar to not qualifying for TJ though you believe your child will succeed there. Or not getting accepted to The Potomac School though you believe your child's package supports acceptance. No different than college acceptances, job offers, etc. Whenever you get in front of a committee of people to evaluate an individual, there is always a chance that the individual isn't successful though they may fully qualified for the endeavor. Given the parents on this board have also dealt with rejection in their own careers and lives, I'm surprised that we are so ill prepared to teach our kids how to succeed without getting mired in the "what is wrong with the system" view.

You have no clue what people here are teaching their kids. You can only assume, and apparently incorrectly. People can teach their kids while also trying to fix a broken system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If FCPS isn’t admitting gifted children into AAP, which legally serves as its gifted program, then it needs to provide gifted services to this population of students. And as a taxpayer and parent of two kids not in AAP, it is pretty appalling that we are spending the amount of money and resources on AAP and excluding kids if the program isn’t even doing what it is designed to do.

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/LocalPlanGifted2016to2021.pdf

FCPS is deciding eligibility for services based on factors without any clear thresholds. FCPS can determine that your child was eligible for LIII but not LIV. As a taxpayer, you are not entitled to LIV services just because you believe your child will benefit from it. Similar to not qualifying for TJ though you believe your child will succeed there. Or not getting accepted to The Potomac School though you believe your child's package supports acceptance. No different than college acceptances, job offers, etc. Whenever you get in front of a committee of people to evaluate an individual, there is always a chance that the individual isn't successful though they may fully qualified for the endeavor. Given the parents on this board have also dealt with rejection in their own careers and lives, I'm surprised that we are so ill prepared to teach our kids how to succeed without getting mired in the "what is wrong with the system" view.

Oh GMAB. These aren't just parents having a tantrum because they think their child is smarter than the child is. These are parents that have objective proof that their child is technically gifted or even highly gifted. FCPS has a legal obligation to provide gifted services to gifted children. They can't just massage the definition of gifted to exclude kids that are actually gifted -- by doing so, there effectively isn't a gifted mandate. Also, you, like many other PPs, don't seem to understand the history and importance of gifted programs. Hint - They're NOT for kids who will be fine but bored in gen ed. It's not a case of whining that your child might have a slightly lower chance of a good college. It's more a case of worrying that your highly gifted child will become so disengaged with school and so socially out of the loop that they turn to drugs, drop out of school, commit suicide, significantly underachieve or any of the other things that are actually MORE common for gifted children who are not receiving any services or interventions.

Kids with gifted level WISC scores and low GBRS are precisely the kids who need AAP the most. The kids with the high GBRS are likely to succeed in any educational environment. AAP is nice for them, but they certainly don't need it.

If your child is scoring in the 'highly gifted' range, please don't be under the false presumption that FCPS LIV AAP is the solution for your child. You have absolutely NO idea about the program, if that is the case. AAP LIV, though marketed as FCPS's answer to gifted/talented, is clearly not a real gifted and talented program because the broad swath that FCPS lays is to cover about 20% of the kids in FCPS. As the parent of the child that scored 150+ on the WISC, I hope you know that 20% of the population does not get ~150. As many posters have suggested, put in some hard work to find a suitable solution for your child. It doesn't always involve money because if a child is scoring at that level, there are lots of programs out there with minimal cost outlay. LIV AAP will certainly not be responsive to your child's need and all the time you're wasting on trying to get them into the program could have been spent on finding the right solution for your highly gifted child. It's a really big mismatch that you're not wanting to understand.

You've posted this about a dozen times across different threads. I've yet to see you explain how this child is better off in gen ed vs AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a white family in my neighborhood that brought a lawyer to the table. Her kid was smart, not nearly that high IQ though.
One meeting with the lawyer and next thing the kid is at the LIV center.

Lawyer up folks. Get your friends together and do it if necessary. Demand transparency and guidelines. This is public school, the public has a say.

Any info on who the lawyer was?

I'm in. Are there any lawyers here who would be willing to get this started?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why does closing the achievement gap mean RAISING the achievement gap for one group and lowering it for another? Isn't that taking it even further apart?? LOWER it for the URM. But don't RAISE it for Asian Americans!

You're not actually raising the threshold for the Asian or White child. You're creating a bell curve for White population and Asian population, and certain White or Asian children may be 'screened out' based on a peer comparison because they are on the very high end +2SD or into +3SD (as a WISC score of 150+ suggests) or didn't receive as good of an overall rating as compared to the other White or Asians against which they were compared. For the +3SD, the parents should really be looking elsewhere as some posters have noted here. FCPS is not the right setting to serve these children and hopefully the parents have some understanding of this. The reason for the screening out the high end of the curve is to serve the White, Asian, Hispanic and AA population that are relatively comparable. Though even in this scenario, the population of White and Asian accepted into the program score much higher than Hispanic and Asian.

All of this is also largely predicated on demographics of the school, both for feeder and center schools. If you're in Colvin Run or Churchill territory, you're looking at Hispanic/AA population at approx 5% and 10%, respectively, for the center schools and the feeder schools. Think about that! We are talking combined ethnicities. You have a very small pool of Hispanic or African Americans who will be considered for AAP. Compare that to Mosby Woods and the feeder schools for MW, where the range of Hispanic/AA go from 20% to 35% (sometimes equivalent to the number of Asians). Is it possible that FCPS screened out more Asian or White kids in Mosby Woods center based LIV program compared to that of Colvin Run or Churchill? It's most likely what occurred. As an Asian or White in the MW center/feeder schools, your competition is also a lot stiffer. You're competing for a seat that is being challenged by not only more Hispanic/AA representation (since FCPS won't be able to meet their quotas in schools like Colvin Run or Churchill or other few), but also a stiffer White and Asian population. Your Asian kid might have gotten a 140 CoGAT and 2F. The other Asian child received a 136 on CoGAT but a 4Cs. My bet is that the latter Asian child getting through but the former getting rejected. You may follow up with the WISC, but if most of the spots are already gone at the center, it makes it hard for the appeals process to work in your favor. Even with a high WISC score. I think that's why when FCPS says they look at AAP admissions "holistically," we really should think much bigger picture than an individual's packet. Their holistic approach is noting some much larger.

So now people are arguing that some Asians should be denied AAP due to being overqualified? As if they would be better off in Gen Ed? Or should they leave FCPS? They cannot be served in AAP because AAP needs to be watered down in order to accomodate other populations. Or as someone else noted earlier, excluding these applicants is the easy solution to closing the score gap of accepted students by race.

I get that some Asians and Whites are upset that their child tested as a high achiever or perhaps even truly gifted and didn't get into AAP LIV. That's life! It's no different than what your kid could experience applying to TJ and not getting in or applying to Harvard/Princeton/Yale and not getting in. It happens. And it happens a lot in life. Suck it up. Accept it. Understand that there is inherently limited space and that FCPS is looking at race (especially when the program is audited for equity gap). And, in a fully holistic review of what FCPS wants in its class of this year and what was in your child's package, something was triggered which left your child out of luck. You job now is to figure out how you can help your child to stay on their path of success. You would have had to do that anyway if your child is truly gifted. If you want to try again next year, go for it. FCPS allows you that ability. You may or may not be successful, but don't wallow in the rejection. It's moot. Figure out a different way to help your child. It's not that hard. (At least not at this stage. It will get much harder if your child continues on their gifted path so best to get started sooner rather than later.)

Nobody needs or wants parenting advice from you, and this isn't the point of this thread anyway. I am not going to teach my child to suck up and accept discrimination. Only an entitled person who never faced adversity would say something like that.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a white family in my neighborhood that brought a lawyer to the table. Her kid was smart, not nearly that high IQ though.
One meeting with the lawyer and next thing the kid is at the LIV center.

Lawyer up folks. Get your friends together and do it if necessary. Demand transparency and guidelines. This is public school, the public has a say.

Any info on who the lawyer was?

I'm in. Are there any lawyers here who would be willing to get this started?

If people want to get together and pursue this further, I for one, am up for that. But we need to take it off this group and actually take real action. It isn’t even about our individual children, but about clarity in this whole process!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a white family in my neighborhood that brought a lawyer to the table. Her kid was smart, not nearly that high IQ though.
One meeting with the lawyer and next thing the kid is at the LIV center.

Lawyer up folks. Get your friends together and do it if necessary. Demand transparency and guidelines. This is public school, the public has a say.

What should families without the resources to "lawyer up" do in order to achieve the same goals when needed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a white family in my neighborhood that brought a lawyer to the table. Her kid was smart, not nearly that high IQ though.
One meeting with the lawyer and next thing the kid is at the LIV center.

Lawyer up folks. Get your friends together and do it if necessary. Demand transparency and guidelines. This is public school, the public has a say.

What should families without the resources to "lawyer up" do in order to achieve the same goals when needed?

Cozy up to the AART and Principal. It sure works in our school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a white family in my neighborhood that brought a lawyer to the table. Her kid was smart, not nearly that high IQ though.
One meeting with the lawyer and next thing the kid is at the LIV center.

Lawyer up folks. Get your friends together and do it if necessary. Demand transparency and guidelines. This is public school, the public has a say.

Any info on who the lawyer was?

I'm in. Are there any lawyers here who would be willing to get this started?

If people want to get together and pursue this further, I for one, am up for that. But we need to take it off this group and actually take real action. It isn’t even about our individual children, but about clarity in this whole process!

I am a lawyer. But I am not registered in VA. I was given the name of the lawyers that pursued Special Needs rights for FCPS (and how they were/are being restrained.) I may email them and ask if there is some sort of a class suit or quicker action to be taken. If anyone wants to find out, the names I was given was :


Kevin Byrnes

https://fhhfirm.com/kevin-byrnes


Regina Kline

https://www.browngold.com/team/gina-kline