Minorities almost never file the appeals that can help secure their admission to AAP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of it is knowing the system here in FCPS. I'm white, and it honestly didn't occur to me that a large group of kids under the cutoff would be admitted. I assumed that the program was only for gifted kids and outliers, and I also assumed that the school would either tell me that my child belonged in AAP, or would automatically refer and place my child. It wasn't until after I started reading dcum and talking to neighbors that I realized that strong parental involvement was one reason many kids were being admitted to AAP. I can easily see why hispanic or lower SES families who don't have the luxury of being over-involved in their children's education might assume that the schools would just appropriately place their children, that children who didn't test in don't belong in AAP, and that if a child is rejected, they should just accept that and move on.

People have said on these forums that one of the reasons for so many parent referrals, appeals, and applying year after year is that parents just won't take "no" for an answer. On the flip side, clearly some groups are taking "no" for an answer way too easily. I would still love to see the demographics for parent referrals for kids in the 120-126 score range as well as the 126-131 range. I wouldn't at all be surprised if the overwhelming majority of white or asian kids in the 120-125 range are parent referred, while a decent percent of black or hispanic ones aren't.

+1. Has anyone ever done a FOIA on this, I wonder?

[Anonymous]

The article is misleading. The article does not say what percentage file appeals. Just what percentage have successful appeals. 50 out of "hundreds" are successful, which looks like 25% are admitted on appeal. Perhaps the numbers did not support the premise the author wanted to make before getting the data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Not having many underrepresented minorities in AAP is something fcps has been working on for years but everything they try results in bringing more Asian kids into the fold. Everything people suggest here probably have already been tried.

Have they tried using a growth metric rather than an achievement one? It might help flag children who start out way behind, but are gaining ground quickly, even if they still aren't a year above grade level by 2nd grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AAP should be for gifted kids, not just high achievers.

This. It should be for those outliers who struggle to get their needs met in the gen ed classroom. They’re so far ahead that they have no peers who can understand the content they are working on. There should be a cut-off in the 140s or higher.

The cut off should be at 2 deviations away from the norm, over 130 (99%), and should be a hard cut off.

The only appeals that should be allowed are ones with WISC higher than 130.

So 130 wouldn't get in? Must be 131+?

[Anonymous]

I think the problem is FCPS still looks at its gifted program as one of high achivement vs one of potentional, which is what giftedness is. If it actually started doing that I think it would capture more 2E kids, minorities, and truly gifted children. Many gifted people were not/are not high achievers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the problem is FCPS still looks at its gifted program as one of high achivement vs one of potentional, which is what giftedness is. If it actually started doing that I think it would capture more 2E kids, minorities, and truly gifted children. Many gifted people were not/are not high achievers.

Where are you getting the idea that FCPS looks at its gifted program as one of high achievement? Everything I have seen and heard about the program is that it isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the problem is FCPS still looks at its gifted program as one of high achivement vs one of potentional, which is what giftedness is. If it actually started doing that I think it would capture more 2E kids, minorities, and truly gifted children. Many gifted people were not/are not high achievers.

Where are you getting the idea that FCPS looks at its gifted program as one of high achievement? Everything I have seen and heard about the program is that it isn't.

The holistic process captures a lot of high achievers with mediocre test scores. Also, kids who are high achievers are likely to be viewed more positively by their teachers and thus receive a higher GBRS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the problem is FCPS still looks at its gifted program as one of high achivement vs one of potentional, which is what giftedness is. If it actually started doing that I think it would capture more 2E kids, minorities, and truly gifted children. Many gifted people were not/are not high achievers.

Where are you getting the idea that FCPS looks at its gifted program as one of high achievement? Everything I have seen and heard about the program is that it isn't.

The holistic process captures a lot of high achievers with mediocre test scores. Also, kids who are high achievers are likely to be viewed more positively by their teachers and thus receive a higher GBRS.

Do you have a source for your statement that the process captures a lot of high achievers with mediocre test scores?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The article is misleading. The article does not say what percentage file appeals. Just what percentage have successful appeals. 50 out of "hundreds" are successful, which looks like 25% are admitted on appeal. Perhaps the numbers did not support the premise the author wanted to make before getting the data.

If you read the original AP story, you’ll see it states that blacks and Hispanics account for less than 3% of all appeals.

[Anonymous]

Then there are some inaccuracies or lack of details here. 3% is stated but it seems to be comparing the number of successful appeals in one year to all appeals (1737) over the past 10 years of county records.

In a previous paragraph it refers to "hundreds" of appeals every year.

Is it hundreds per year or 1700?

Also why are they only referring to successful appeals? Why not state the overall % of appeals?

[Anonymous]

It’s pretty clear in this paragraph from The Post:

Of the 1,737 second-graders admitted through the appeals process over the last decade, fewer than 50 were black and Hispanic. Black and Hispanic students constituted 12 percent of those deemed eligible for the highest academic classes in Fairfax County over the last decade, according to the AP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s pretty clear in this paragraph from The Post:

Of the 1,737 second-graders admitted through the appeals process over the last decade, fewer than 50 were black and Hispanic. Black and Hispanic students constituted 12 percent of those deemed eligible for the highest academic classes in Fairfax County over the last decade, according to the AP.

Successful or unsuccessful, appeals don't seem to be the issue. Referrals seem to be the missing factor, from those stats. Or at least, from those who say that 33% of 2nd graders in AAP get in by referrals with scores well below the cutoff, referrals seem to be what is lacking.

[Anonymous]

If they aren't going to release cogat scores until a couple days before the referrals are due, that could affect demographics for parent referrals. Many higher SES families were probably planning to refer and already gathered their materials well before the application deadline. Many lower income families might not have been considering referral, and then don't have enough time to put together a packet, even if their child is close to the cutoff.

[Anonymous]

It’s pretty clear in this paragraph from The Post:

Of the 1,737 second-graders admitted through the appeals process over the last decade, fewer than 50 were black and Hispanic. Black and Hispanic students constituted 12 percent of those deemed eligible for the highest academic classes in Fairfax County over the last decade, according to the AP.

But it's not "clear." Because there is a difference between "admitted" and appealed. It sounds to me like only a small % of people appeal at all, of any race.

I agree the referrals data are what is missing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AAP should be for gifted kids, not just high achievers.

This. It should be for those outliers who struggle to get their needs met in the gen ed classroom. They’re so far ahead that they have no peers who can understand the content they are working on. There should be a cut-off in the 140s or higher.

The cut off should be at 2 deviations away from the norm, over 130 (99%), and should be a hard cut off.

The only appeals that should be allowed are ones with WISC higher than 130.

So 130 wouldn't get in? Must be 131+?

Same question