FCPS potential changes to AAP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why FCPS want to increase more student in AAP since many parents already complaining AAP now has been watering. If FCPS believe there is so high percentage of kids can go to AAP it only means the GE is too easy, they should consider putting some AAP Level curriculum to GE.

It is not helping the kids by put them in AAP because they are minority but CogAT is not over 97%. they won’t catch up to the AAP and always in the bottom of the class.

I agree with you, but FCPS isn't necessarily trying to improve educational outcomes. They're trying to look better in the US News& World report school rankings, GreatSchools, etc. One example of this is that the USNWR high school rankings give you credit for the number of kids taking AP classes and the URMs taking AP classes, but they don't seem to care as much about whether those kids actually pass the class. So, FCPS encourages tons of kids to take AP, FCPS pays for the exams, and then a lot of kids only score 1 or 2 on the test.

Right now, the educational fad is the achievement gap, and all of those ranking sites have some sort of achievement gap metric. FCPS is doing everything it can to look better on paper with this. I'm not sure how much they care about whether they're serving highly gifted kids who will be more bored with a bloated AAP or the URMs who don't belong there and will struggle with the curriculum.

The US News methodology takes into account both AP/IB participation and the percentage of students at a school actually receiving passing scores on AP/IB exams. In that regard, it is different from Jay Matthews' "Challenge Index," which only looks at the number of AP/IB classes taken by students and rewards schools that channel kids into more AP/IB classes regardless of their performance in the classroom or on AP/IB exams.

Schools in FCPS have done very well in all the national rankings. I don't think FCPS is motivated by a desire to boost those rankings, so much as it's trying to pay greater attention to equity at the same time it is wedded to a large, and very bloated, AAP system. Rather than reconsider its AAP model, it's easier for Gatehouse to set arbitrary targets that can be manipulated to demonstrate a commitment to equity.

Few would argue that giftedness can only be revealed through test scores administered to students in second grade. However, expanding AAP with an explicit goal of ensuring that a minimum and eventually similar percentage of students from every cohort end up in AAP is ripe with the potential for mistakes that end up hurting some FCPS students, especially Asian students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:18:58 is right, there's no cap being implied for any race/group... the stated goal is 25% "or more" of all Asian kids in FCPS would be in the AAP program, and that 25% "or more" of all Latino kids in FCPS would be in the AAP program, and so forth for each group. This in no way implies that "only 25% of AAP kids can be of status/group ____" as some poster(s) seemed to think.

The bigger concern is that >25% of FCPS kids would be in the AAP program... that's moving in the wrong direction.

Or just call it tracking with AAP being the new "advanced track" if that's what you want to turn it into by making it that large of a cohort... and then develop a new pullout program for the kids who really need it (top 1-3% or whatever) and would otherwise be underserved due to the expansion/watering down of AAP... could call it AAAP.

Or, even, just call it GT. Get the program back to where it was before they changed the name and use the AAP terminology for what would essentially be an honors program for hard workers. The schools would do a better job of meeting the needs of all kids if they moved more in the direction of having both a gifted program and an advanced academics program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:18:58 is right, there's no cap being implied for any race/group... the stated goal is 25% "or more" of all Asian kids in FCPS would be in the AAP program, and that 25% "or more" of all Latino kids in FCPS would be in the AAP program, and so forth for each group. This in no way implies that "only 25% of AAP kids can be of status/group ____" as some poster(s) seemed to think.

The bigger concern is that >25% of FCPS kids would be in the AAP program... that's moving in the wrong direction.

Or just call it tracking with AAP being the new "advanced track" if that's what you want to turn it into by making it that large of a cohort... and then develop a new pullout program for the kids who really need it (top 1-3% or whatever) and would otherwise be underserved due to the expansion/watering down of AAP... could call it AAAP.

Or, even, just call it GT. Get the program back to where it was before they changed the name and use the AAP terminology for what would essentially be an honors program for hard workers. The schools would do a better job of meeting the needs of all kids if they moved more in the direction of having both a gifted program and an advanced academics program.

+1

Yeah, but that would make too much sense.

The Level IV Programs that we have experienced here suck, BTW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:18:58 is right, there's no cap being implied for any race/group... the stated goal is 25% "or more" of all Asian kids in FCPS would be in the AAP program, and that 25% "or more" of all Latino kids in FCPS would be in the AAP program, and so forth for each group. This in no way implies that "only 25% of AAP kids can be of status/group ____" as some poster(s) seemed to think.

The bigger concern is that >25% of FCPS kids would be in the AAP program... that's moving in the wrong direction.

Or just call it tracking with AAP being the new "advanced track" if that's what you want to turn it into by making it that large of a cohort... and then develop a new pullout program for the kids who really need it (top 1-3% or whatever) and would otherwise be underserved due to the expansion/watering down of AAP... could call it AAAP.

Or, even, just call it GT. Get the program back to where it was before they changed the name and use the AAP terminology for what would essentially be an honors program for hard workers. The schools would do a better job of meeting the needs of all kids if they moved more in the direction of having both a gifted program and an advanced academics program.

+1

Yeah, but that would make too much sense.

The Level IV Programs that we have experienced here suck, BTW.

And we should care about your opinion here because...? GTFOH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:18:58 is right, there's no cap being implied for any race/group... the stated goal is 25% "or more" of all Asian kids in FCPS would be in the AAP program, and that 25% "or more" of all Latino kids in FCPS would be in the AAP program, and so forth for each group. This in no way implies that "only 25% of AAP kids can be of status/group ____" as some poster(s) seemed to think.

The bigger concern is that >25% of FCPS kids would be in the AAP program... that's moving in the wrong direction.

Or just call it tracking with AAP being the new "advanced track" if that's what you want to turn it into by making it that large of a cohort... and then develop a new pullout program for the kids who really need it (top 1-3% or whatever) and would otherwise be underserved due to the expansion/watering down of AAP... could call it AAAP.

Or, even, just call it GT. Get the program back to where it was before they changed the name and use the AAP terminology for what would essentially be an honors program for hard workers. The schools would do a better job of meeting the needs of all kids if they moved more in the direction of having both a gifted program and an advanced academics program.

Then we're back to tracking and people would complain that only Asians and whites are in the GT program. They have spent years trying to "fix" things - adding the NNAT, changing the name to AAP and expanding the program, and adding in young scholars but the gap remains. They should leave it the way it is and add in local level everywhere and let the principal's add who they need to make the numbers. Those who want can continue to attend the centers with center eligible students.

[Anonymous]

Did anyone attend the meeting tonight? Are they planning to reduce the percentages of Asians/whites to 25% next year? If so, how?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought quotas were unconstitutional?

It’s complicated.

With the caveat that I have not seen the FCPS exact phrasing— quotas are generally unconstitutional. But, in holistic admissions, like AAP, URM status as a “plus factor”— one consideration out of several— is okay. And targets or goals that might or might not be reached are fine. So, if FCPS is trying to put systems in place to help reach enrollment goals for URMs, it could be fine. Especially if the goals are aspirational, rather than actual quotas. “We hope that there will be enough qualified URMs” is different than “we will take unqualified URMs is we must to hit a certain number. It’s like Harvard aggressively recruiting URMs and giving URM status special weight. Fine, as long as being a URM is not the deciding factor.

But— a lot of this law is in the context of college admissions, where there a set number of seats. AAP is different, because every qualified kid is supposed to be admitted. Unlike Harvard, a URM getting admission does not take a seat from some other, possibly more qualified kid. Your UMC white kid will still be admitted, whether or not the YS model is used to identify additional URM kids. So, I would think FCPS would get additional flexibility.

Quotas will discriminate against asian kids, period.

This quota requirement will result in asian kids with scores in the 130 to 135 range being left out of AAP, while kids of other races with scores in the 110s to 130 range are accepted.

It is completely racist.

I think it is racist to say Asian kids are smarter.

TJ, a school for very smart kids, is about 70% Asian. So draw your own conclusions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought quotas were unconstitutional?

It’s complicated.

With the caveat that I have not seen the FCPS exact phrasing— quotas are generally unconstitutional. But, in holistic admissions, like AAP, URM status as a “plus factor”— one consideration out of several— is okay. And targets or goals that might or might not be reached are fine. So, if FCPS is trying to put systems in place to help reach enrollment goals for URMs, it could be fine. Especially if the goals are aspirational, rather than actual quotas. “We hope that there will be enough qualified URMs” is different than “we will take unqualified URMs is we must to hit a certain number. It’s like Harvard aggressively recruiting URMs and giving URM status special weight. Fine, as long as being a URM is not the deciding factor.

But— a lot of this law is in the context of college admissions, where there a set number of seats. AAP is different, because every qualified kid is supposed to be admitted. Unlike Harvard, a URM getting admission does not take a seat from some other, possibly more qualified kid. Your UMC white kid will still be admitted, whether or not the YS model is used to identify additional URM kids. So, I would think FCPS would get additional flexibility.

Quotas will discriminate against asian kids, period.

This quota requirement will result in asian kids with scores in the 130 to 135 range being left out of AAP, while kids of other races with scores in the 110s to 130 range are accepted.

It is completely racist.

I think it is racist to say Asian kids are smarter.

TJ, a school for very smart kids, is about 70% Asian. So draw your own conclusions.

TJ is a school for very smart kids, very driven kids, and kids whose parents are willing to send their kids to prep centers in Kindergarten. You draw your own conclusions.

There are plenty of bright kids who choose not to take the TJ test or choose not to attend TJ.

There are plenty of bright kids who are less driven and worried about what math class they are taking in 7th grade.

I strongly suspect that the higher number of Asians in AAP and at TJ has less to do with one race being smarter then another and more to do with cultural practices that value math tutoring more then baseball/football/soccer/basketball/name a sport.

So I don’t think that one race is smarter then another, I think that there are cultural practices in play. I think that there are different ideas about balancing school wiht non-school activities.

I can’t think of any place in the US were the airports are shut down in order to reeduce noise levels so that kids can focus on their college entrance exams, like they do in South Korea. I can’t think of any place in the US that has entire shopping malls filled with academic tutoring businesses that are open until midnight like my friend from Singapore describes.

Correlation does not equal causation. TJ numbers do not reflect the percentage of smart kids per racial group.

I don’t like quotas, I don’t think that there should be quotas but I also don’t think that a heavey Asian presence in any academic programs means Asians are more intelligent then other racial groups. I think that there is a greater likelihood that the kids prepped for the necessary exams to be admited to AAP and Algebra Honors in 7th grade and TJ. More power to those kids and the parents willing to spend the money to get their kids into those programs.

i am perfectly content with my sons NNAT score, above the threshold. We had no clue it was coming or what it meant. I found this site googling NNAT FCPS in order to understand what it meant. We didn’t prep. It is but one data point in his short life and we are looking to help him achieve his potential academically. And in baseball. And Basketball. And swimming. And. Cub Scouts. Why? Because we think his being a balnced individual and not stressing about academics at 6 is a good thing. Maybe he won’t get into TJ because we didn’tg et hims started with math tutoring. Maybe he will despite our lack of math tutoring. I am not worried about it. I know that there are other people on this board who are already worried about their kids scores at 6. To each their own.

But I would argue that the higher percentage of Asians at TJ is much more due to their parents academic focus and less to do witht he fact that Asians are inhenerently smarter then other races.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought quotas were unconstitutional?

It’s complicated.

With the caveat that I have not seen the FCPS exact phrasing— quotas are generally unconstitutional. But, in holistic admissions, like AAP, URM status as a “plus factor”— one consideration out of several— is okay. And targets or goals that might or might not be reached are fine. So, if FCPS is trying to put systems in place to help reach enrollment goals for URMs, it could be fine. Especially if the goals are aspirational, rather than actual quotas. “We hope that there will be enough qualified URMs” is different than “we will take unqualified URMs is we must to hit a certain number. It’s like Harvard aggressively recruiting URMs and giving URM status special weight. Fine, as long as being a URM is not the deciding factor.

But— a lot of this law is in the context of college admissions, where there a set number of seats. AAP is different, because every qualified kid is supposed to be admitted. Unlike Harvard, a URM getting admission does not take a seat from some other, possibly more qualified kid. Your UMC white kid will still be admitted, whether or not the YS model is used to identify additional URM kids. So, I would think FCPS would get additional flexibility.

Quotas will discriminate against asian kids, period.

This quota requirement will result in asian kids with scores in the 130 to 135 range being left out of AAP, while kids of other races with scores in the 110s to 130 range are accepted.

It is completely racist.

I think it is racist to say Asian kids are smarter.

TJ, a school for very smart kids, is about 70% Asian. So draw your own conclusions.

TJ is a school for very smart kids, very driven kids, and kids whose parents are willing to send their kids to prep centers in Kindergarten. You draw your own conclusions.

There are plenty of bright kids who choose not to take the TJ test or choose not to attend TJ.

There are plenty of bright kids who are less driven and worried about what math class they are taking in 7th grade.

I strongly suspect that the higher number of Asians in AAP and at TJ has less to do with one race being smarter then another and more to do with cultural practices that value math tutoring more then baseball/football/soccer/basketball/name a sport.

So I don’t think that one race is smarter then another, I think that there are cultural practices in play. I think that there are different ideas about balancing school wiht non-school activities.

I can’t think of any place in the US were the airports are shut down in order to reeduce noise levels so that kids can focus on their college entrance exams, like they do in South Korea. I can’t think of any place in the US that has entire shopping malls filled with academic tutoring businesses that are open until midnight like my friend from Singapore describes.

Correlation does not equal causation. TJ numbers do not reflect the percentage of smart kids per racial group.

I don’t like quotas, I don’t think that there should be quotas but I also don’t think that a heavey Asian presence in any academic programs means Asians are more intelligent then other racial groups. I think that there is a greater likelihood that the kids prepped for the necessary exams to be admited to AAP and Algebra Honors in 7th grade and TJ. More power to those kids and the parents willing to spend the money to get their kids into those programs.

i am perfectly content with my sons NNAT score, above the threshold. We had no clue it was coming or what it meant. I found this site googling NNAT FCPS in order to understand what it meant. We didn’t prep. It is but one data point in his short life and we are looking to help him achieve his potential academically. And in baseball. And Basketball. And swimming. And. Cub Scouts. Why? Because we think his being a balnced individual and not stressing about academics at 6 is a good thing. Maybe he won’t get into TJ because we didn’tg et hims started with math tutoring. Maybe he will despite our lack of math tutoring. I am not worried about it. I know that there are other people on this board who are already worried about their kids scores at 6. To each their own.

But I would argue that the higher percentage of Asians at TJ is much more due to their parents academic focus and less to do witht he fact that Asians are inhenerently smarter then other races.

I am Asian (Indian) and I appreciate the perspective you gave. I agree it is about cultural and intellectual preferences rather than genetic racial differences. I would add one more factor - that immigration policy selects for highly educated asian parents and/or stem-oriented asian parents as well (at least for the NoVA asian population if not in for the NY City magnet school asian parent population). This factor reinforces those cultural and intellectual preferences in the parenting goals for asian kids (although to be race neutral these SES and parent education factors may also apply to parents of other races in NoVA high-tech economy or upper middle-class NoVA professional parents' choices as well).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But— a lot of this law is in the context of college admissions, where there a set number of seats. AAP is different, because every qualified kid is supposed to be admitted. Unlike Harvard, a URM getting admission does not take a seat from some other, possibly more qualified kid. Your UMC white kid will still be admitted, whether or not the YS model is used to identify additional URM kids.

Umm.. no.

25% is a statistical measure.

It's not like they are saying they want 5 kids of X race per class of 20 . They want 25% of AAP according to OP. That means, possibly, admitting less kids per class of Y race.
Or, it could mean admitting a LOT fo X race and continuing to admit "your UMC white kid." Then class sizes could be bigger.

They already do this anyway. It's nothing new. It's apparent if you are in a center and have friends at other schools who share scores. Otherwise they wouldn't require name, race, and school on the cover page that gets submitted. It would be a blind admission based on a number. And it's not.

The below is a quote from the OP. I read this as saying that the the goal is that 25% or more of each subgroup, not 25% of total AAP.More than four groups are listed, so it can’t be 25% of AAP. There are places for any child who qualifies, so no group is taking the places of another group.

It sounds more to me that the end goal is for more than 25% of all FCPS students to eventually be in AAP, if the goal for each subgroup to be 25% or more.

Setting targets that each measured demographic subgroup (Asian, Black, Hispanic, White, Economically Disadvantaged, English Language Learners, and Students with Disabilities) would be at or above 25% participation in AAP by 2022-24 and would be at equal percentages of participation by 2028-2030

.

All these people who claim to have bred genius kids seem to lack reading comprehension skills

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are many kiddos in Level IV who are not placed appropriately - they are struggling with the advanced material. If we’re going to add more kids to Level IV, then we need to create a Level V to meet the needs of the kids who truly are advanced.

- AAP Teacher

Yes. Yes. Yes.

- Another AAP Teacher

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought NNAT score was basically an IQ estimate or close proxy? So that's how you'd know.

It's not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought quotas were unconstitutional?

It’s complicated.

With the caveat that I have not seen the FCPS exact phrasing— quotas are generally unconstitutional. But, in holistic admissions, like AAP, URM status as a “plus factor”— one consideration out of several— is okay. And targets or goals that might or might not be reached are fine. So, if FCPS is trying to put systems in place to help reach enrollment goals for URMs, it could be fine. Especially if the goals are aspirational, rather than actual quotas. “We hope that there will be enough qualified URMs” is different than “we will take unqualified URMs is we must to hit a certain number. It’s like Harvard aggressively recruiting URMs and giving URM status special weight. Fine, as long as being a URM is not the deciding factor.

But— a lot of this law is in the context of college admissions, where there a set number of seats. AAP is different, because every qualified kid is supposed to be admitted. Unlike Harvard, a URM getting admission does not take a seat from some other, possibly more qualified kid. Your UMC white kid will still be admitted, whether or not the YS model is used to identify additional URM kids. So, I would think FCPS would get additional flexibility.

Quotas will discriminate against asian kids, period.

You do know there are non-Asian kids who can get in but opt not to go to TJ because they call it China-town right? Totally racist and not accurate, but it is a thing. My point is the demographics of TJ fall into a chicken egg scenario at this point. Many Asians want to go because "that's where Asians go" and many non-Asians who can get in chose not to go because "that's where Asians go"
This quota requirement will result in asian kids with scores in the 130 to 135 range being left out of AAP, while kids of other races with scores in the 110s to 130 range are accepted.

It is completely racist.

I think it is racist to say Asian kids are smarter.

Check out TJ’s demographics and see for yourself

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would certainly like to hear a strong statement from FCPS against prepping though I think it’s largely unenforceable, unfortunately.

Why bother making a statement when it won't have any effect? At this point, they'd be better off providing or recommending prep materials to everyone to level the playing field. Or they would be better off switching to a new test and not telling parents precisely what the test is.

This would be optimal especially if it shifted each year but I'm sure it's too expensive.

[Anonymous]

The OP didn’t specify what level AAP they were trying to equalize participation rates for, just AAP in general.

And if they want to reduce Asians, just throw out the test. Stop testing. Then just base it on something arbitrary and call it a “personality score” or something like that.