AAP Equity report

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When adjusted for test scores, an AA kid is more than 5 times more likely to be selected than a white or Asian kid with the same stats.

Now that is a disturbing stat.

If you want the full context, it's the first paragraph on page 27

The full context is that the system has been heavily rigged in favor of URM and they still end up being underrepresented. Do we need to rig the system further or should we do something different? Since when does Equality mean equal outcome in this country?

Thanks for the info. I understand trying to level the playing field, but lowering the standard based on race isn't going to solve any problems. These opportunities are finite, and you are denying an opportunity to a more qualified student because of their race. 5x more likely is just insane. It's like they never learn. I would love for these kids to get more help early on that would make them more competitive.

It is 5 times more likely based on tests scores and GRBS scores, which are NOT impartial. The report flat out states that. When you look at NNAT scores only it is only around 1.5 times more likely. And if you look there are white kids who have scored a 70 on the NNAT and still have gotten admitted while the lowest AA NNAT score is like 86 who has gotten admitted.

You are cherry picking the data to support your view. It's obvious to everyone that Fairfax is willing to lower standards for AA students in the name of diversity. This is nothing new and it is racist, just not racist against URMs, so nobody cares.

When students dont do well, they always have an excuse. Remember how the SAT used to be culturally biased? Lol ok, only to people who bombed it. Other excuses are things like test prep, but that isn't something that only impacts AA kids.

DP. The report doesn't show that. All races had similar ranges for test scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m actually not surprised that the mean V score for admitted students is quite low. My DC scored a 119 on Verbal and scored in the 130’s in her Q and NV. She is a very strong writer, has an excellent vocabulary and her DRA is 38. She did mention during the Cogat testing days that she had to do a test with weird pictures and was confused about what they were. She also mentioned the teacher would state the questions and she prefers reading the questions on her own. Later on I found out that the section was the verbal one. Of all the sections, I think Cogat verbal is the least correlative of intelligence and maybe the selection committee realizes this?

This describes my older kid’s experience pretty well, too. His CogAT sub scores were something like 127/144/137. Excellent reader and writer, 40 DRA in 2nd grade. I was supposed V was lowest. Had a friend whose kid did not get in in 2nd. CogAT was something like 102/130/130 I think. Took the totally different test for 3rd graders the next year on AART’s recommendation and V score went up to around 130 while others stayed close to original score. Composite was over 132 but I’m not sure of any sub scores were. Got in first round in 3rd, applying for 4th grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When adjusted for test scores, an AA kid is more than 5 times more likely to be selected than a white or Asian kid with the same stats.

Now that is a disturbing stat.

If you want the full context, it's the first paragraph on page 27

The full context is that the system has been heavily rigged in favor of URM and they still end up being underrepresented. Do we need to rig the system further or should we do something different? Since when does Equality mean equal outcome in this country?

Thanks for the info. I understand trying to level the playing field, but lowering the standard based on race isn't going to solve any problems. These opportunities are finite, and you are denying an opportunity to a more qualified student because of their race. 5x more likely is just insane. It's like they never learn. I would love for these kids to get more help early on that would make them more competitive.

Agree with 22:47. This is an Advanced program! Why do we have to name the diversity here? Whoever qualifies standards of the program will get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When adjusted for test scores, an AA kid is more than 5 times more likely to be selected than a white or Asian kid with the same stats.

Now that is a disturbing stat.

If you want the full context, it's the first paragraph on page 27

It is test scores AND GBRS score. Several AA families have posted here that there are many teachers who give their AA lower than expected GBRS scores. The report goes on to in the next paragraph if you just look at NNAT the rate is 1.5 to 1.

The report does criticize the subjectivity of GBRS and recognizes that GBRS needs to be changed. I also would hope that if Young Scholars is expanded, then then AARTs would know the AA kids in their school better and be more able to advocate for them.

I'm not bothered by AA kids with the same stats being 5 times more likely to be selected. The white and Asian kids with the same test scores are much more likely to have prepped for the CogAT than the AA kid. So, if you adjust for prepping, the AA kid actually has a much higher natural score.

Wow so is that based on any kind of research stat or just your own (racist?) perception of AA families interest/attention to preparing their child for assessments? Just wondering...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When adjusted for test scores, an AA kid is more than 5 times more likely to be selected than a white or Asian kid with the same stats.

Now that is a disturbing stat.

If you want the full context, it's the first paragraph on page 27

The full context is that the system has been heavily rigged in favor of URM and they still end up being underrepresented. Do we need to rig the system further or should we do something different? Since when does Equality mean equal outcome in this country?

Thanks for the info. I understand trying to level the playing field, but lowering the standard based on race isn't going to solve any problems. These opportunities are finite, and you are denying an opportunity to a more qualified student because of their race. 5x more likely is just insane. It's like they never learn. I would love for these kids to get more help early on that would make them more competitive.

Agree with 22:47. This is an Advanced program! Why do we have to name the diversity here? Whoever qualifies standards of the program will get in.

Because the argument was made that the metrics are biased. If the standards that are required are skewed in favor of some groups and didadvabtage others—which they basically determined by outcome that they must be—then it’s an “unfair” standard and we have to re-examine it for bias and tweak it until the outcome of the results yields the same number of AA, whites, Hispanics, and Asians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asians are over represented and Hispanics are under represented. Whites and blacks are roughly proportional to school age population.

"In the end, we found no evidence of racial / ethnic bias against African American or Hispanic
students in the Level IV selection process (either at the screening or eligibility phases)"

BULLSHIT

Agree!

[Anonymous]

The reality of demographics in Ffx County is that URM are much more likely to be concentrated in Title One schools. Instruction in those Title One schools is going to be slower because of the number of ESOL students. So you have potentially very bright students who end up with lower scores on the CogAT because they’ve been exposed to less advanced material in the classroom and maybe at home as well if they come from families that can’t afford all the enrichment UMC parents typically provide. It makes sense that these kids receive special consideration in the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reality of demographics in Ffx County is that URM are much more likely to be concentrated in Title One schools. Instruction in those Title One schools is going to be slower because of the number of ESOL students. So you have potentially very bright students who end up with lower scores on the CogAT because they’ve been exposed to less advanced material in the classroom and maybe at home as well if they come from families that can’t afford all the enrichment UMC parents typically provide. It makes sense that these kids receive special consideration in the process.

I agree with this, but those kids are still screwed if they go to a base school that doesn't have a full-time AART and/or has a principal who thinks AAP isn't necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When adjusted for test scores, an AA kid is more than 5 times more likely to be selected than a white or Asian kid with the same stats.

Now that is a disturbing stat.

If you want the full context, it's the first paragraph on page 27

The full context is that the system has been heavily rigged in favor of URM and they still end up being underrepresented. Do we need to rig the system further or should we do something different? Since when does Equality mean equal outcome in this country?

Thanks for the info. I understand trying to level the playing field, but lowering the standard based on race isn't going to solve any problems. These opportunities are finite, and you are denying an opportunity to a more qualified student because of their race. 5x more likely is just insane. It's like they never learn. I would love for these kids to get more help early on that would make them more competitive.

The leveling of the playing field means not allowing for parent referrals which are used far more by White families. The counterbalance to that was to lower the score to be in pool since the current score represents the top 2% of the scores and is pretty high. Given that the average CogAT score was a 119, lowering the in-pool score to 125 or something along those lines, While removing referrals, will increase the pool and raise the average score in AAP AND help level the playing field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not bothered by AA kids with the same stats being 5 times more likely to be selected. The white and Asian kids with the same test scores are much more likely to have prepped for the CogAT than the AA kid. So, if you adjust for prepping, the AA kid actually has a much higher natural score.

Wow so is that based on any kind of research stat or just your own (racist?) perception of AA families interest/attention to preparing their child for assessments? Just wondering...

Prepping is cheating. You're not supposed to prep for the CogAT or NNAT. If you do any web searches for prep camps or prep classes, there are some obvious demographic trends behind who is using them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When adjusted for test scores, an AA kid is more than 5 times more likely to be selected than a white or Asian kid with the same stats.

Now that is a disturbing stat.

If you want the full context, it's the first paragraph on page 27

The full context is that the system has been heavily rigged in favor of URM and they still end up being underrepresented. Do we need to rig the system further or should we do something different? Since when does Equality mean equal outcome in this country?

Thanks for the info. I understand trying to level the playing field, but lowering the standard based on race isn't going to solve any problems. These opportunities are finite, and you are denying an opportunity to a more qualified student because of their race. 5x more likely is just insane. It's like they never learn. I would love for these kids to get more help early on that would make them more competitive.

The leveling of the playing field means not allowing for parent referrals which are used far more by White families. The counterbalance to that was to lower the score to be in pool since the current score represents the top 2% of the scores and is pretty high. Given that the average CogAT score was a 119, lowering the in-pool score to 125 or something along those lines, While removing referrals, will increase the pool and raise the average score in AAP AND help level the playing field.

I like this suggestion but agree with the report that they should also be using local (i.e. school-based) norms. Lower the in-pool score to the 120s but then make a rule that the top 10% of scorers in each elementary are automatically in-pool as well. That helps capture the high performers in Title I schools who might otherwise be missed. No more parent referrals.

[Anonymous]

If they get rid of parent referrals what happens if you have a WISC? Can you submit that or not? For example, my current second who was found eligible was not “in pool” on NNAT or CogAT but would have been in “pool” if WISC was considered.

I find this would mainly adversely impact students with disabilities if it’s not allowed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they get rid of parent referrals what happens if you have a WISC? Can you submit that or not? For example, my current second who was found eligible was not “in pool” on NNAT or CogAT but would have been in “pool” if WISC was considered.

I find this would mainly adversely impact students with disabilities if it’s not allowed.

I would say WISC should be allowed, on the condition that FCPS needs to partner up with GMU and start brining the testers to the schools. A URM kid who just missed the cutoff whose parents cannot miss work to go to downtown Fairfax in the middle of the day is not going to be WISC tested, even if the fee is waived, because of logistics and a language barrier (GMU will not provide translators to parents). This should be widely offered at all FCPS elementary schools on a sliding scale basis to any student whose parents consent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they get rid of parent referrals what happens if you have a WISC? Can you submit that or not? For example, my current second who was found eligible was not “in pool” on NNAT or CogAT but would have been in “pool” if WISC was considered.

I find this would mainly adversely impact students with disabilities if it’s not allowed.

One of the recommendations was to not allow parent submissions so no WISC. Most of the people providing WISCs are doing so because of lower CogAT scores or as part of the appeal. It is a distinct advantage to parents who have the knowledge, time, and money for a WISC.

2E kids have been tested already and won’t need a WISC. They are not going to be disadvantaged. My son needed speech therapy but underwent other testing to determine if his speech issue was a part of another disability. We have all the reporting from those tests. While it wasn’t the WISC, the two tests they conducted put him in the 99th percentile. Any child that the school is testing for a disability of some sort should be similarly tested..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they get rid of parent referrals what happens if you have a WISC? Can you submit that or not? For example, my current second who was found eligible was not “in pool” on NNAT or CogAT but would have been in “pool” if WISC was considered.

I find this would mainly adversely impact students with disabilities if it’s not allowed.

One of the recommendations was to not allow parent submissions so no WISC. Most of the people providing WISCs are doing so because of lower CogAT scores or as part of the appeal. It is a distinct advantage to parents who have the knowledge, time, and money for a WISC.

2E kids have been tested already and won’t need a WISC. They are not going to be disadvantaged. My son needed speech therapy but underwent other testing to determine if his speech issue was a part of another disability. We have all the reporting from those tests. While it wasn’t the WISC, the two tests they conducted put him in the 99th percentile. Any child that the school is testing for a disability of some sort should be similarly tested..

What do you mean 2E kids have been tested already and won’t need a WISC? My two 2E kids had a lot of tests done including the WISC as part of their diagnoses. For the current second grader I did submit all the tests.