Is AAP race blind? Are there quotas?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading the appeals decisions thread about insane wisc scores getting denied makes me wonder if there is more to the story at FCPS AAP this year.

Does anyone know if race is now being taken into consideration?

Race is likely a factor but it is just one factor. I doubt the county has quotas to fill, that would likely be illegal. Consideration of race is not just a quota issue anyways. Having a more diverse AAP population serves a more important purpose - studies have shown that when a student body is more diverse than the collective experience is more valuable.

It may not seem fair that kids aren't held to the same standards but it is not an easy one to fix. In the end, if race is one factor so that the AAP population is more diverse, we are better for it.

It is actually an easy one to fix.
Option 1 - provide programming and opportunities in PK3-2nd that help more hispanic and AA kids meet the standards they need to be successful in AAP. You can increase their representation without needing to artificially decrease anyone else's. If there is a hard cap on numbers of kids, then put in the Asian and white kids who are actually gifted and not the ones with 120s test scores and high GBRS.
Option 2 - LLIV at all schools. Admit any kids to AAP who show that they need more than gen ed. Conduct a lottery for the AAP Center spots, and have the lottery pick a percentage of students from each race comparable to the representation of that race in the FCPS population. Centers would be diverse and serve everyone's needs, and while the LLIVs might be less diverse, at least the kids would get what they need academically.
Option 3 - Make AAP open enrollment, just like MS Honors. Keep standards high, and provide extra help, kind of like the MS AVID program, for the kids from underrepresented groups.

What they shouldn't be doing is placing kids with absurdly high WISC scores into the average/remedial track.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Are you arguing that black/brown kids had 139+ and didnt get in or are you mad that white kids below 132 got in?

There is a threshold. A child not hitting that threshold is the exception not the rule.

There is not a threshold. Tons of kids get in with 115-125 test scores. The AAP equity report showed that the average scores for Level IV Black and Hispanic kids are around 114-120. It also showed that there were kids in each ethnic group who scored around 80 (score - which equates to around the 10th percentile!) who still got in. I can cite the AAP equity report to illustrate my point. What can you cite to show that there is a threshold?

You already know the threshold.

Yes, cite the pages of the report here please.

And again, what is your argument? That black and brown kids should not have gotten in? This is a pretty bold argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading the appeals decisions thread about insane wisc scores getting denied makes me wonder if there is more to the story at FCPS AAP this year.

Does anyone know if race is now being taken into consideration?

Race is likely a factor but it is just one factor. I doubt the county has quotas to fill, that would likely be illegal. Consideration of race is not just a quota issue anyways. Having a more diverse AAP population serves a more important purpose - studies have shown that when a student body is more diverse than the collective experience is more valuable.

It may not seem fair that kids aren't held to the same standards but it is not an easy one to fix. In the end, if race is one factor so that the AAP population is more diverse, we are better for it.

It is actually an easy one to fix.
Option 1 - provide programming and opportunities in PK3-2nd that help more hispanic and AA kids meet the standards they need to be successful in AAP. You can increase their representation without needing to artificially decrease anyone else's. If there is a hard cap on numbers of kids, then put in the Asian and white kids who are actually gifted and not the ones with 120s test scores and high GBRS.
Option 2 - LLIV at all schools. Admit any kids to AAP who show that they need more than gen ed. Conduct a lottery for the AAP Center spots, and have the lottery pick a percentage of students from each race comparable to the representation of that race in the FCPS population. Centers would be diverse and serve everyone's needs, and while the LLIVs might be less diverse, at least the kids would get what they need academically.
Option 3 - Make AAP open enrollment, just like MS Honors. Keep standards high, and provide extra help, kind of like the MS AVID program, for the kids from underrepresented groups.

What they shouldn't be doing is placing kids with absurdly high WISC scores into the average/remedial track.

What the PP said before is simply not true. It's not at all clear that "we are better for" having a more diverse population rather than a more intelligent population in a program that is supposed to be geared toward kids of high intelligence! Why do they benefit from having kids who are less intelligent with different skin colors??? You don't gear teaching based on skin color. You gear teaching based on aptitude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Are you arguing that black/brown kids had 139+ and didnt get in or are you mad that white kids below 132 got in?

There is a threshold. A child not hitting that threshold is the exception not the rule.

There is not a threshold. Tons of kids get in with 115-125 test scores. The AAP equity report showed that the average scores for Level IV Black and Hispanic kids are around 114-120. It also showed that there were kids in each ethnic group who scored around 80 (score - which equates to around the 10th percentile!) who still got in. I can cite the AAP equity report to illustrate my point. What can you cite to show that there is a threshold?

You already know the threshold.

Yes, cite the pages of the report here please.

And again, what is your argument? That black and brown kids should not have gotten in? This is a pretty bold argument.

What are you even talking about? There is no threshold! There is no minimum score for admission, and there is no score that will disqualify any child. Lots of kids of all colors get in with scores below 132 or even below 125. The test scores are largely irrelevant compared to GBRS and work samples.

Equity report is here: https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BPD4M50C2B1F/$file/FCPS%20final%20report%2005.05.20.pdf. Page 6 shows the racial breakdown in the scores of eligible students.

I'm not arguing anything about whether black or brown kids should have gotten in. I'm arguing that there's no CogAT and NNAT threshold that bars eligibility. There is no score too low to be accepted, providing that the child has a good GBRS. If anything, YOU'RE the one implying that the black and brown kids with lower scores who got in shouldn't have, because you're the one insisting that there's some sort of score threshold. All of the races showed comparable GBRS scores among the admitted students, because the committee is currently using that and not test scores as the main factor.

[Anonymous]

I see people are flying their racists flags on this fine afternoon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading the appeals decisions thread about insane wisc scores getting denied makes me wonder if there is more to the story at FCPS AAP this year.

Does anyone know if race is now being taken into consideration?

Race is likely a factor but it is just one factor. I doubt the county has quotas to fill, that would likely be illegal. Consideration of race is not just a quota issue anyways. Having a more diverse AAP population serves a more important purpose - studies have shown that when a student body is more diverse than the collective experience is more valuable.

It may not seem fair that kids aren't held to the same standards but it is not an easy one to fix. In the end, if race is one factor so that the AAP population is more diverse, we are better for it.

It is actually an easy one to fix.
Option 1 - provide programming and opportunities in PK3-2nd that help more hispanic and AA kids meet the standards they need to be successful in AAP. You can increase their representation without needing to artificially decrease anyone else's. If there is a hard cap on numbers of kids, then put in the Asian and white kids who are actually gifted and not the ones with 120s test scores and high GBRS.
Option 2 - LLIV at all schools. Admit any kids to AAP who show that they need more than gen ed. Conduct a lottery for the AAP Center spots, and have the lottery pick a percentage of students from each race comparable to the representation of that race in the FCPS population. Centers would be diverse and serve everyone's needs, and while the LLIVs might be less diverse, at least the kids would get what they need academically.
Option 3 - Make AAP open enrollment, just like MS Honors. Keep standards high, and provide extra help, kind of like the MS AVID program, for the kids from underrepresented groups.

What they shouldn't be doing is placing kids with absurdly high WISC scores into the average/remedial track.

What the PP said before is simply not true. It's not at all clear that "we are better for" having a more diverse population rather than a more intelligent population in a program that is supposed to be geared toward kids of high intelligence! Why do they benefit from having kids who are less intelligent with different skin colors??? You don't gear teaching based on skin color. You gear teaching based on aptitude.

Do some research. A quick search will prompt several studies that show the value of a diverse student body. The Supreme Court has ruled in several cases that race as a factor in an admissions process serves a compelling government interest. I realize this isn't a college admissions but you should be able to make the connection.

While you are at it, take a deep breath. It is not about skin color, it is about diverse backgrounds. Your comment about less intelligent kids with different skin colors is extremely out of line. You sound like a freaking monster. You want your kid to have the best education? Well it starts in the home and your kid is learning from you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Are you arguing that black/brown kids had 139+ and didnt get in or are you mad that white kids below 132 got in?

There is a threshold. A child not hitting that threshold is the exception not the rule.

There is not a threshold. Tons of kids get in with 115-125 test scores. The AAP equity report showed that the average scores for Level IV Black and Hispanic kids are around 114-120. It also showed that there were kids in each ethnic group who scored around 80 (score - which equates to around the 10th percentile!) who still got in. I can cite the AAP equity report to illustrate my point. What can you cite to show that there is a threshold?

You already know the threshold.

Yes, cite the pages of the report here please.

And again, what is your argument? That black and brown kids should not have gotten in? This is a pretty bold argument.

What are you even talking about? There is no threshold! There is no minimum score for admission, and there is no score that will disqualify any child. Lots of kids of all colors get in with scores below 132 or even below 125. The test scores are largely irrelevant compared to GBRS and work samples.

Equity report is here: https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BPD4M50C2B1F/$file/FCPS%20final%20report%2005.05.20.pdf. Page 6 shows the racial breakdown in the scores of eligible students.

I'm not arguing anything about whether black or brown kids should have gotten in. I'm arguing that there's no CogAT and NNAT threshold that bars eligibility. There is no score too low to be accepted, providing that the child has a good GBRS. If anything, YOU'RE the one implying that the black and brown kids with lower scores who got in shouldn't have, because you're the one insisting that there's some sort of score threshold. All of the races showed comparable GBRS scores among the admitted students, because the committee is currently using that and not test scores as the main factor.

Page 6 of this report doesnt show any of what you're talking about. Page 6 is a breakdown of the AAP participation rates by demographic.

Surely you know that a threshold is a benchmark and that kids can be accepted below that given special circumstances? I'm definitely not implying that black and brown kids should not be allowed entry based on lower scores. I'm still trying to figure out what your point is though. Its not some outlandish idea that if a kid has a lower score but the rest of his/her package is impressive that he should be let into the program. Otherwise why even ask for anything other than test? If anything using a broader criteria will increase the amount of diversity in the program because know that generally bias exists in standardized testing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Are you arguing that black/brown kids had 139+ and didnt get in or are you mad that white kids below 132 got in?

There is a threshold. A child not hitting that threshold is the exception not the rule.

There is not a threshold. Tons of kids get in with 115-125 test scores. The AAP equity report showed that the average scores for Level IV Black and Hispanic kids are around 114-120. It also showed that there were kids in each ethnic group who scored around 80 (score - which equates to around the 10th percentile!) who still got in. I can cite the AAP equity report to illustrate my point. What can you cite to show that there is a threshold?

You already know the threshold.

Yes, cite the pages of the report here please.

And again, what is your argument? That black and brown kids should not have gotten in? This is a pretty bold argument.

What are you even talking about? There is no threshold! There is no minimum score for admission, and there is no score that will disqualify any child. Lots of kids of all colors get in with scores below 132 or even below 125. The test scores are largely irrelevant compared to GBRS and work samples.

Equity report is here: https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BPD4M50C2B1F/$file/FCPS%20final%20report%2005.05.20.pdf. Page 6 shows the racial breakdown in the scores of eligible students.

I'm not arguing anything about whether black or brown kids should have gotten in. I'm arguing that there's no CogAT and NNAT threshold that bars eligibility. There is no score too low to be accepted, providing that the child has a good GBRS. If anything, YOU'RE the one implying that the black and brown kids with lower scores who got in shouldn't have, because you're the one insisting that there's some sort of score threshold. All of the races showed comparable GBRS scores among the admitted students, because the committee is currently using that and not test scores as the main factor.

PP again, and if anything, I'm arguing that the white and Asian kids with the lower test scores should not have gotten in. These are kids that are already highly privileged and even prepped for the exams, only to get scores around 120 even after prepping. Since the CogAT is so easily prepped, I have no problem with giving less privileged children a score bump, assuming that they weren't prepped and other kids were. The kids with ludicrously high scores should be in. The white and Asian kids with all of the privilege, academic extracurriculars, parent involvement, and prepping who still can't even scrape up a 132 score are the ones who don't belong.

Also, it really does bother me that one URM category that they're trying to boost is "Hispanic" rather than "Latinx." White kids of Spanish origin are basically white and upper middle class. They shouldn't be getting boosted into AAP as if they're disadvantaged in any way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP here and this "federal ethnic code" which states the race is right next to the Cogat/NNAt scores, etc. It's all on one page.

Are you looking at a referral file from 2020? I am looking at ours right now and there’s no “race” “federal ethnic code” or gender anywhere on the entire packet. Student ID, language spoken in the home, and school attending is on there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here and this "federal ethnic code" which states the race is right next to the Cogat/NNAt scores, etc. It's all on one page.

Are you looking at a referral file from 2020? I am looking at ours right now and there’s no “race” “federal ethnic code” or gender anywhere on the entire packet. Student ID, language spoken in the home, and school attending is on there.

Student ID is tied to the FEC. Look at your enrollment application when you registered your child for FCPS Kindergarten or whatever grade they entered FCPS. That is provided on the backend when the applications are all screened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Page 6 of this report doesnt show any of what you're talking about. Page 6 is a breakdown of the AAP participation rates by demographic.

Surely you know that a threshold is a benchmark and that kids can be accepted below that given special circumstances? I'm definitely not implying that black and brown kids should not be allowed entry based on lower scores. I'm still trying to figure out what your point is though. Its not some outlandish idea that if a kid has a lower score but the rest of his/her package is impressive that he should be let into the program. Otherwise why even ask for anything other than test? If anything using a broader criteria will increase the amount of diversity in the program because know that generally bias exists in standardized testing.

Sorry. Page 66.
It's not a threshold when a decent number of kids are getting in with scores below that threshold. Unless you're trying to argue that 115 or 120 is the threshold, you would have entirely too many kids get in under the threshold these days. It's definitely not 132. If you do the math, AAP represents about 20% of the population per grade. 10-13% are in pool, which required only a single sub score at 132. By FCPS stats, around 2/3 of pool kids get in, which is 6.67-8.67 percent of the school population. The remaining 11.3-13.3 percent of the population is in AAP without being in-pool.

If the threshold is the point at which admission to AAP is rare, then the threshold would have to be at most a 115 CogAT, but it would also be a 12 or so GBRS.

[Anonymous]

FFX should either pay for all students to take the WISC and include that in the initial application review or stop accepting it in appeal packages.

[Anonymous]

Since I like numbers:
The median and SD for CogAT composite scores for white kids in FCPS is 112 and 14.3. This means that only 8% of white kids in FCPS meet the nominal threshold of a 132 CogAT. Yet, a whopping 20% are accepted into Level IV AAP. Likewise, for Asian kids, mean and SD are 115.7 and 15.5, which means that around 14-15% of FCPS Asian kids meet the 132 threshold. Yet, a whopping 33% are in AAP.

Trimming the number of white and Asian kids is a good idea. They're just trimming the wrong ones. If already privileged kids can't at least come close to the 132 benchmark, then they don't belong in the gifted program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FFX should either pay for all students to take the WISC and include that in the initial application review or stop accepting it in appeal packages.

Then they'd probably be violating the ADA. Many of the kids who need WISC to offset lower CogAT scores or worse class performance are 2E. If FCPS really wants to invite lawsuits, then making things harder for 2E kids to get in is a great way to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Page 6 of this report doesnt show any of what you're talking about. Page 6 is a breakdown of the AAP participation rates by demographic.

Surely you know that a threshold is a benchmark and that kids can be accepted below that given special circumstances? I'm definitely not implying that black and brown kids should not be allowed entry based on lower scores. I'm still trying to figure out what your point is though. Its not some outlandish idea that if a kid has a lower score but the rest of his/her package is impressive that he should be let into the program. Otherwise why even ask for anything other than test? If anything using a broader criteria will increase the amount of diversity in the program because know that generally bias exists in standardized testing.

Sorry. Page 66.
It's not a threshold when a decent number of kids are getting in with scores below that threshold. Unless you're trying to argue that 115 or 120 is the threshold, you would have entirely too many kids get in under the threshold these days. It's definitely not 132. If you do the math, AAP represents about 20% of the population per grade. 10-13% are in pool, which required only a single sub score at 132. By FCPS stats, around 2/3 of pool kids get in, which is 6.67-8.67 percent of the school population. The remaining 11.3-13.3 percent of the population is in AAP without being in-pool.

If the threshold is the point at which admission to AAP is rare, then the threshold would have to be at most a 115 CogAT, but it would also be a 12 or so GBRS.

The data on page 66 do not say a decent number of kids are getting scores below the threshold. The minimum scores could be that 1 kid in each demographic got in with those scores. And it certainly doesnt tell you if that one kid with the minimum scored the minimum across all the tests.

I have no idea where you're getting the rest of these numbers so I wont address those.