Science says: never get rid of AAP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Smart people tend to earn more money and intelligence is hereditary. Obviously anti-AAP folks are too dumb to understand correlated omitted variables. lol

My kid is in AAP. My husband and I have graduate degrees. We are not dumb. So I’m not AAP hater. But the system is flawed. Kids with high scores get rejected. Kids whose parents have resources and know the system get in on appeal. And it’s an accelerated program Vs a gifted program. I think any reasonably intelligent person can see it’s flawed. The people who get very defensive about any criticism of it to the point that they have to call people dumb shouldn’t be boasting about their intelligence.

I guess what frosts me is this assertion that someone's kid is more deserving of opportunities like TJ because they were in AAP. Yes, my kids are in AAP, but so what. All kids deserve great opportunities, not just those whose parents know how to work the system. Lots of bright and gifted kids fallthrough the cracks.

What is the evidence/why the assumption that the majority of AAP kids somehow game the system? I’m at an upper SES school and don’t know a single family that did this, maybe I’m just unaware. I parent referred my kid in second, and he wasn’t accepted. Reapplied in third, accepted for fourth. I didn’t talk to the principal or a teacher about it, I just did it on my own. How are people gaming a system? Don’t claim they’re all PTA mom kids. Our center school has a fairly inactive PTA.

I don't know about the majority but many get in because their parents work the system.

How. Are. They. Working. The. System?

You (and others) keep asserting that over and over again, but without any proof or even a solid allegation, for that matter.

The last AAP Audit pointed to how families with higher SES end up with a higher percentage of kids in AAP then other families. It pointed to a higher propensity for parents to refer, parents to appeal, and parents to seek outside testing. FCPS removed the letters of recommendation from the AAP packet because it was noted that higher SES families were more likely to provide those and have kids in opportunities were someone could write a letter. FCPS also removed the awards section because higher SES families were more likely to have their kids involved in math competitions and music competitions.

Essentially, the rules allow all of the above but the Audit noted that as SES increase, the likelihood that parents used the rules increased. It also noted that Asian and White families were far more likely to use the various avenues in order to get their kids into AAP. And they are more likely to reapply. And reapply.

The parents are following the rules but the disparity in who is following those rules is leading to the process tightening. Test scores are no longer given much weight, they seem to be used only to establish the pool of automatic candidates. They removed the awards and letters of recommendation because they were biased towards people who could afford activities.

One of the recommendations from the Audit was to remove parent paid for testing and appeals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Smart people tend to earn more money and intelligence is hereditary. Obviously anti-AAP folks are too dumb to understand correlated omitted variables. lol

My kid is in AAP. My husband and I have graduate degrees. We are not dumb. So I’m not AAP hater. But the system is flawed. Kids with high scores get rejected. Kids whose parents have resources and know the system get in on appeal. And it’s an accelerated program Vs a gifted program. I think any reasonably intelligent person can see it’s flawed. The people who get very defensive about any criticism of it to the point that they have to call people dumb shouldn’t be boasting about their intelligence.

I guess what frosts me is this assertion that someone's kid is more deserving of opportunities like TJ because they were in AAP. Yes, my kids are in AAP, but so what. All kids deserve great opportunities, not just those whose parents know how to work the system. Lots of bright and gifted kids fallthrough the cracks.

What is the evidence/why the assumption that the majority of AAP kids somehow game the system? I’m at an upper SES school and don’t know a single family that did this, maybe I’m just unaware. I parent referred my kid in second, and he wasn’t accepted. Reapplied in third, accepted for fourth. I didn’t talk to the principal or a teacher about it, I just did it on my own. How are people gaming a system? Don’t claim they’re all PTA mom kids. Our center school has a fairly inactive PTA.

I don't know about the majority but many get in because their parents work the system.

How. Are. They. Working. The. System?

You (and others) keep asserting that over and over again, but without any proof or even a solid allegation, for that matter.

The last AAP Audit pointed to how families with higher SES end up with a higher percentage of kids in AAP then other families. It pointed to a higher propensity for parents to refer, parents to appeal, and parents to seek outside testing. FCPS removed the letters of recommendation from the AAP packet because it was noted that higher SES families were more likely to provide those and have kids in opportunities were someone could write a letter. FCPS also removed the awards section because higher SES families were more likely to have their kids involved in math competitions and music competitions.

Essentially, the rules allow all of the above but the Audit noted that as SES increase, the likelihood that parents used the rules increased. It also noted that Asian and White families were far more likely to use the various avenues in order to get their kids into AAP. And they are more likely to reapply. And reapply.

The parents are following the rules but the disparity in who is following those rules is leading to the process tightening. Test scores are no longer given much weight, they seem to be used only to establish the pool of automatic candidates. They removed the awards and letters of recommendation because they were biased towards people who could afford activities.

One of the recommendations from the Audit was to remove parent paid for testing and appeals.

The equity report also showed that URMs are being admitted with significantly lower test scores than White or Asian kids, and that after controlling for test scores and GBRS, a AA kid is 5 times more likely to be selected than an Asian kid.

My white DD got rejected and we needed to use the appeals/reapply system to get her in. She had a 130 CogAT, 15 GBRS, was above grade level in all metrics, eventually got pass advanced on all SOLs with perfect scores on most of them, and got a 98th percentile on IAAT. Meanwhile, 2 of her close friends who are URMs got in first round with CogAT scores less than 120. They weren't in the above grade level reading group, didn't get pass advanced on SOLs, failed the IAAT pretty spectacularly (one got 30th percentile), and didn't get the President's Award at the end of 6th. All of the kids were middle class with educated parents, but at a Title I school.

I don't begrudge letting above average but not really AAP level URMs into the program to promote equity, but let's be honest about the whole thing. URMs aren't needing to use the appeals or reapply process, because if they're slightly above average, they're already getting in first round. They don't even need to parent refer, since the teachers are already referring any URM who is somewhat above average. It's not unjust that I did use the appeals process for my child, since by any objective measurement, she belonged in the program. What is your solution to the fact that even after lowering the bar significantly for URMs, they're still technically underrepresented in AAP? Should we lower the bar even more? Should we reject more White and Asian kids who are above grade level in all metrics? Should we eliminate appeals to keep kids like mine out of the program?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Smart people tend to earn more money and intelligence is hereditary. Obviously anti-AAP folks are too dumb to understand correlated omitted variables. lol

My kid is in AAP. My husband and I have graduate degrees. We are not dumb. So I’m not AAP hater. But the system is flawed. Kids with high scores get rejected. Kids whose parents have resources and know the system get in on appeal. And it’s an accelerated program Vs a gifted program. I think any reasonably intelligent person can see it’s flawed. The people who get very defensive about any criticism of it to the point that they have to call people dumb shouldn’t be boasting about their intelligence.

I guess what frosts me is this assertion that someone's kid is more deserving of opportunities like TJ because they were in AAP. Yes, my kids are in AAP, but so what. All kids deserve great opportunities, not just those whose parents know how to work the system. Lots of bright and gifted kids fallthrough the cracks.

What is the evidence/why the assumption that the majority of AAP kids somehow game the system? I’m at an upper SES school and don’t know a single family that did this, maybe I’m just unaware. I parent referred my kid in second, and he wasn’t accepted. Reapplied in third, accepted for fourth. I didn’t talk to the principal or a teacher about it, I just did it on my own. How are people gaming a system? Don’t claim they’re all PTA mom kids. Our center school has a fairly inactive PTA.

I don't know about the majority but many get in because their parents work the system.

How. Are. They. Working. The. System?

You (and others) keep asserting that over and over again, but without any proof or even a solid allegation, for that matter.

I don't know if gaming the system is the right word but they are educated enough to know the system to appeal or to know what the central committee is looking for in applicants. That is an advantage.

[Anonymous]

Here is one of the main findings in the AAP equity report
https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BPLQKV69B096/$file/FCPS%20final%20report%2005.05.20.pdf

AAP equity report wrote: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). In fact, Tables
7 and 8 shows that African American and Hispanic students had far greater odds of being screened
(Table 7) or found eligible (Table 8) for Level IV services than their similar-scoring (on GBRS, NNAT,
and CogAT) European American peers. Asian American students also had greater odds of being
screened for or found eligible for Level IV services than their similar-scoring, European American
peers. We also found no evidence of gender bias at the screening or Level IV eligibility phases.
27
This means that although African American and Hispanic students are still disproportionally
underrepresented in Level IV services, they are actually being placed in Level IV services at higher
rates than would be expected given their NNAT, CogAT, and GBRS scores. African American students
with similar scores as their European American peers were identified for Level IV services at a rate of
5.7 to 1. Similarly, while Asian American students are disproportionally overrepresented in Level IV
services compared to their enrollment in the overall FCPS population, this rate is close to what
should be expected given their test scores. Asian American students with similar scores as their
European American peers were identified for Level IV services at a rate of 1.1 to 1 - almost identical.
When we look at the NNAT alone, we still see no evidence of a bias against African American or
Hispanic students. The NNAT is described by the publisher as a "culture neutral" test of general
ability. When we control for NNAT scores, African American students were still found eligible for
Level IV services at a rate of 1.5 to 1 - less than when we control for all available data, but still no
evidence of any negative bias against African American students.
In short, this suggests that much of what FCPS has been doing to increase the diversity of Level IV
services has been working. If Level IV services were based on CogAT, NNAT, and GBRS scores alone,
far fewer African American and Hispanic students would be identified as Level IV eligible than they
are today. Why is there such a disparity? It is likely due to larger inequality and the achievement
gaps shown in Table 6. Nationally, students enter school with different levels of content mastery
and readiness. These achievement gaps across groups exist on nearly every test and when any of
those tests are used for program admission, these disproportional enrollment figures should be
expected. Currently, it appears that FCPS is putting forth significant effort to increase the Level IV
eligibility rate of African American and Hispanic student, but the achievement gaps between groups
is so large that this effort is still not enough to make the Level IV population reflective of the overall
student population.

There is not some epidemic of White and Asian parents gaming the system. FCPS is making a heroic effort to identify pretty much any URM who seems capable of handling AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are so many dumb woke/liberal talking points on here

Woke? liberal? Stop parroting Fox News. People are pointing out flaws in the system. I have an AAP kid. She thrived in AAP vs gen ed. But I still think the selection process if flawed and that the whole AAP=all the smart kids and gen ed=not smart kids is something silly AAP parents tell themselves to make them feel better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Smart people tend to earn more money and intelligence is hereditary. Obviously anti-AAP folks are too dumb to understand correlated omitted variables. lol

My kid is in AAP. My husband and I have graduate degrees. We are not dumb. So I’m not AAP hater. But the system is flawed. Kids with high scores get rejected. Kids whose parents have resources and know the system get in on appeal. And it’s an accelerated program Vs a gifted program. I think any reasonably intelligent person can see it’s flawed. The people who get very defensive about any criticism of it to the point that they have to call people dumb shouldn’t be boasting about their intelligence.

I guess what frosts me is this assertion that someone's kid is more deserving of opportunities like TJ because they were in AAP. Yes, my kids are in AAP, but so what. All kids deserve great opportunities, not just those whose parents know how to work the system. Lots of bright and gifted kids fallthrough the cracks.

What is the evidence/why the assumption that the majority of AAP kids somehow game the system? I’m at an upper SES school and don’t know a single family that did this, maybe I’m just unaware. I parent referred my kid in second, and he wasn’t accepted. Reapplied in third, accepted for fourth. I didn’t talk to the principal or a teacher about it, I just did it on my own. How are people gaming a system? Don’t claim they’re all PTA mom kids. Our center school has a fairly inactive PTA.

I don't know about the majority but many get in because their parents work the system.

How. Are. They. Working. The. System?

You (and others) keep asserting that over and over again, but without any proof or even a solid allegation, for that matter.

The last AAP Audit pointed to how families with higher SES end up with a higher percentage of kids in AAP then other families. It pointed to a higher propensity for parents to refer, parents to appeal, and parents to seek outside testing. FCPS removed the letters of recommendation from the AAP packet because it was noted that higher SES families were more likely to provide those and have kids in opportunities were someone could write a letter. FCPS also removed the awards section because higher SES families were more likely to have their kids involved in math competitions and music competitions.

Essentially, the rules allow all of the above but the Audit noted that as SES increase, the likelihood that parents used the rules increased. It also noted that Asian and White families were far more likely to use the various avenues in order to get their kids into AAP. And they are more likely to reapply. And reapply.

The parents are following the rules but the disparity in who is following those rules is leading to the process tightening. Test scores are no longer given much weight, they seem to be used only to establish the pool of automatic candidates. They removed the awards and letters of recommendation because they were biased towards people who could afford activities.

One of the recommendations from the Audit was to remove parent paid for testing and appeals.

The equity report also showed that URMs are being admitted with significantly lower test scores than White or Asian kids, and that after controlling for test scores and GBRS, a AA kid is 5 times more likely to be selected than an Asian kid.

My white DD got rejected and we needed to use the appeals/reapply system to get her in. She had a 130 CogAT, 15 GBRS, was above grade level in all metrics, eventually got pass advanced on all SOLs with perfect scores on most of them, and got a 98th percentile on IAAT. Meanwhile, 2 of her close friends who are URMs got in first round with CogAT scores less than 120. They weren't in the above grade level reading group, didn't get pass advanced on SOLs, failed the IAAT pretty spectacularly (one got 30th percentile), and didn't get the President's Award at the end of 6th. All of the kids were middle class with educated parents, but at a Title I school.

I don't begrudge letting above average but not really AAP level URMs into the program to promote equity, but let's be honest about the whole thing. URMs aren't needing to use the appeals or reapply process, because if they're slightly above average, they're already getting in first round. They don't even need to parent refer, since the teachers are already referring any URM who is somewhat above average. It's not unjust that I did use the appeals process for my child, since by any objective measurement, she belonged in the program. What is your solution to the fact that even after lowering the bar significantly for URMs, they're still technically underrepresented in AAP? Should we lower the bar even more? Should we reject more White and Asian kids who are above grade level in all metrics? Should we eliminate appeals to keep kids like mine out of the program?

This is such a good example of how the burden of equity winds up resting on MC or even LC white kids, who are expected to give up spots in AAP and other enrichment to URM for the sake of equity. While a wealthy white family would simply pay for private and private enrichment and bypass the merit-based system for achievement altogether.

This is the problem. It's one thing to say that we need to promote URM students for the sake of equity -- I don't disagree with that. But in practice, high-SES parents protect themselves from participating so it's just MC kids who actually *need* these programs to facilitate not just going to college but being able to afford it who wind up being pushed aside for the sake of giving their URM MC peers a shot. It doesn't actually result in equity. It feels unfair because it is unfair. Meanwhile mediocre kids with wealthy parents will suck up most of the resources anyway. Why are we doing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is one of the main findings in the AAP equity report
https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BPLQKV69B096/$file/FCPS%20final%20report%2005.05.20.pdf

AAP equity report wrote: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). In fact, Tables
7 and 8 shows that African American and Hispanic students had far greater odds of being screened
(Table 7) or found eligible (Table 8) for Level IV services than their similar-scoring (on GBRS, NNAT,
and CogAT) European American peers. Asian American students also had greater odds of being
screened for or found eligible for Level IV services than their similar-scoring, European American
peers. We also found no evidence of gender bias at the screening or Level IV eligibility phases.
27
This means that although African American and Hispanic students are still disproportionally
underrepresented in Level IV services, they are actually being placed in Level IV services at higher
rates than would be expected given their NNAT, CogAT, and GBRS scores. African American students
with similar scores as their European American peers were identified for Level IV services at a rate of
5.7 to 1. Similarly, while Asian American students are disproportionally overrepresented in Level IV
services compared to their enrollment in the overall FCPS population, this rate is close to what
should be expected given their test scores. Asian American students with similar scores as their
European American peers were identified for Level IV services at a rate of 1.1 to 1 - almost identical.
When we look at the NNAT alone, we still see no evidence of a bias against African American or
Hispanic students. The NNAT is described by the publisher as a "culture neutral" test of general
ability. When we control for NNAT scores, African American students were still found eligible for
Level IV services at a rate of 1.5 to 1 - less than when we control for all available data, but still no
evidence of any negative bias against African American students.
In short, this suggests that much of what FCPS has been doing to increase the diversity of Level IV
services has been working. If Level IV services were based on CogAT, NNAT, and GBRS scores alone,
far fewer African American and Hispanic students would be identified as Level IV eligible than they
are today. Why is there such a disparity? It is likely due to larger inequality and the achievement
gaps shown in Table 6. Nationally, students enter school with different levels of content mastery
and readiness. These achievement gaps across groups exist on nearly every test and when any of
those tests are used for program admission, these disproportional enrollment figures should be
expected. Currently, it appears that FCPS is putting forth significant effort to increase the Level IV
eligibility rate of African American and Hispanic student, but the achievement gaps between groups
is so large that this effort is still not enough to make the Level IV population reflective of the overall
student population.

There is not some epidemic of White and Asian parents gaming the system. FCPS is making a heroic effort to identify pretty much any URM who seems capable of handling AAP.

I am aware that the report finds that as well. The question was on how people are gaming the system. I was laying out what the report points to.

My impression is that the majority of kids with weaker scores are at different schools then the ones where parents are more likely to refer and appeal. I am sure that there are anecdotes from every school but I would suspect that the lower scoring URMs that are being admitted are more likely located at Title 1 schools and that the higher scoring White and Asian kids not being admitted are at higher SES schools. I don't believe the report actually tracks that piece of the puzzle. But the different in-pool test scores from last year pointed to higher base scores for in-pool from MC and UMC ES. There were fewer posts about below 132 scores being in-pool, probably because those are at lower SES schools that don't tend to post at DCUM.

Teacher referrals are higher at Title 1 and near Title 1 schools then at MC and UMC schools because Teachers know that parents are less likely to refer at those schools.

So yes, there is a move to include more URM kids in AAP but that does not mean that the kids with 118 scores are at schools where the in-pool scores last year were over 140.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is one of the main findings in the AAP equity report
https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BPLQKV69B096/$file/FCPS%20final%20report%2005.05.20.pdf

AAP equity report wrote: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). In fact, Tables
7 and 8 shows that African American and Hispanic students had far greater odds of being screened
(Table 7) or found eligible (Table 8) for Level IV services than their similar-scoring (on GBRS, NNAT,
and CogAT) European American peers. Asian American students also had greater odds of being
screened for or found eligible for Level IV services than their similar-scoring, European American
peers. We also found no evidence of gender bias at the screening or Level IV eligibility phases.
27
This means that although African American and Hispanic students are still disproportionally
underrepresented in Level IV services, they are actually being placed in Level IV services at higher
rates than would be expected given their NNAT, CogAT, and GBRS scores. African American students
with similar scores as their European American peers were identified for Level IV services at a rate of
5.7 to 1. Similarly, while Asian American students are disproportionally overrepresented in Level IV
services compared to their enrollment in the overall FCPS population, this rate is close to what
should be expected given their test scores. Asian American students with similar scores as their
European American peers were identified for Level IV services at a rate of 1.1 to 1 - almost identical.
When we look at the NNAT alone, we still see no evidence of a bias against African American or
Hispanic students. The NNAT is described by the publisher as a "culture neutral" test of general
ability. When we control for NNAT scores, African American students were still found eligible for
Level IV services at a rate of 1.5 to 1 - less than when we control for all available data, but still no
evidence of any negative bias against African American students.
In short, this suggests that much of what FCPS has been doing to increase the diversity of Level IV
services has been working. If Level IV services were based on CogAT, NNAT, and GBRS scores alone,
far fewer African American and Hispanic students would be identified as Level IV eligible than they
are today. Why is there such a disparity? It is likely due to larger inequality and the achievement
gaps shown in Table 6. Nationally, students enter school with different levels of content mastery
and readiness. These achievement gaps across groups exist on nearly every test and when any of
those tests are used for program admission, these disproportional enrollment figures should be
expected. Currently, it appears that FCPS is putting forth significant effort to increase the Level IV
eligibility rate of African American and Hispanic student, but the achievement gaps between groups
is so large that this effort is still not enough to make the Level IV population reflective of the overall
student population.

There is not some epidemic of White and Asian parents gaming the system. FCPS is making a heroic effort to identify pretty much any URM who seems capable of handling AAP.

I am aware that the report finds that as well. The question was on how people are gaming the system. I was laying out what the report points to.

My impression is that the majority of kids with weaker scores are at different schools then the ones where parents are more likely to refer and appeal. I am sure that there are anecdotes from every school but I would suspect that the lower scoring URMs that are being admitted are more likely located at Title 1 schools and that the higher scoring White and Asian kids not being admitted are at higher SES schools. I don't believe the report actually tracks that piece of the puzzle. But the different in-pool test scores from last year pointed to higher base scores for in-pool from MC and UMC ES. There were fewer posts about below 132 scores being in-pool, probably because those are at lower SES schools that don't tend to post at DCUM.

Teacher referrals are higher at Title 1 and near Title 1 schools then at MC and UMC schools because Teachers know that parents are less likely to refer at those schools.

So yes, there is a move to include more URM kids in AAP but that does not mean that the kids with 118 scores are at schools where the in-pool scores last year were over 140.

Gaming the system = using your knowledge and privilege to get a kid admitted who doesn't belong in AAP. Appealing and reapplying are highly unlikely to result in a child who doesn't belong in AAP getting admitted. We've seen countless times on dcum that kids with even very high test scores, GBRS, and achievement levels are still getting rejected on appeal. Kids who get accepted when reapplying in 3rd-6th do so because the classroom teacher feels that the kid is outside of the scope of what they can differentiate for in their classroom. Are you suggesting that the few people who have a sufficiently compelling case to get their children admitted in appeals or the kids that the 3rd-6th grade teachers strongly feel belong in AAP should no longer be admitted to AAP?

The main way affluent people are "gaming the system" is that they're enriching their children enough that the children are objectively advanced. Are you suggesting that kids who are objectively a grade level ahead in every single subject should not be placed in an environment teaching at the appropriate level?

Kids with 118 scores and on-grade level reading group were getting accepted at the same Title I school where my kid with a 130 CogAT, 15 GBRS, and above grade level in all subjects was rejected. Even if you want to make the argument that the kids with 118 scores who are accepted are at different schools than the 140 score children who are rejected, how on earth does rejecting high scoring kids at different schools help anyone? Unlike TJ, AAP is not a zero sum game. There is no reason at all to prevent highly capable kids from accessing an advanced curriculum. The only possible reason to reject affluent white and Asian kids with high test scores, high GBRS, and above grade level in all subjects is to improve the optics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is one of the main findings in the AAP equity report
https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BPLQKV69B096/$file/FCPS%20final%20report%2005.05.20.pdf

AAP equity report wrote: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). In fact, Tables
7 and 8 shows that African American and Hispanic students had far greater odds of being screened
(Table 7) or found eligible (Table 8) for Level IV services than their similar-scoring (on GBRS, NNAT,
and CogAT) European American peers. Asian American students also had greater odds of being
screened for or found eligible for Level IV services than their similar-scoring, European American
peers. We also found no evidence of gender bias at the screening or Level IV eligibility phases.
27
This means that although African American and Hispanic students are still disproportionally
underrepresented in Level IV services, they are actually being placed in Level IV services at higher
rates than would be expected given their NNAT, CogAT, and GBRS scores. African American students
with similar scores as their European American peers were identified for Level IV services at a rate of
5.7 to 1. Similarly, while Asian American students are disproportionally overrepresented in Level IV
services compared to their enrollment in the overall FCPS population, this rate is close to what
should be expected given their test scores. Asian American students with similar scores as their
European American peers were identified for Level IV services at a rate of 1.1 to 1 - almost identical.
When we look at the NNAT alone, we still see no evidence of a bias against African American or
Hispanic students. The NNAT is described by the publisher as a "culture neutral" test of general
ability. When we control for NNAT scores, African American students were still found eligible for
Level IV services at a rate of 1.5 to 1 - less than when we control for all available data, but still no
evidence of any negative bias against African American students.
In short, this suggests that much of what FCPS has been doing to increase the diversity of Level IV
services has been working. If Level IV services were based on CogAT, NNAT, and GBRS scores alone,
far fewer African American and Hispanic students would be identified as Level IV eligible than they
are today. Why is there such a disparity? It is likely due to larger inequality and the achievement
gaps shown in Table 6. Nationally, students enter school with different levels of content mastery
and readiness. These achievement gaps across groups exist on nearly every test and when any of
those tests are used for program admission, these disproportional enrollment figures should be
expected. Currently, it appears that FCPS is putting forth significant effort to increase the Level IV
eligibility rate of African American and Hispanic student, but the achievement gaps between groups
is so large that this effort is still not enough to make the Level IV population reflective of the overall
student population.

There is not some epidemic of White and Asian parents gaming the system. FCPS is making a heroic effort to identify pretty much any URM who seems capable of handling AAP.

Except for all those kids whose families dropped $20k on years of intense prep classes to ensure their children had access to entry exams before the exam...

[Anonymous]

Where in God's name are alleged $20k prep classes for the NNAT ot COGAT?

A student in DC's class disappeared for 3 days the wk before the COGAT last yr, not sick, and I strongly suspect he went to one of these cram places. I cannot believe though that anyone in their right mind shells out $20k for 2nd grade test prep

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is one of the main findings in the AAP equity report
https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BPLQKV69B096/$file/FCPS%20final%20report%2005.05.20.pdf

AAP equity report wrote: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). In fact, Tables
7 and 8 shows that African American and Hispanic students had far greater odds of being screened
(Table 7) or found eligible (Table 8) for Level IV services than their similar-scoring (on GBRS, NNAT,
and CogAT) European American peers. Asian American students also had greater odds of being
screened for or found eligible for Level IV services than their similar-scoring, European American
peers. We also found no evidence of gender bias at the screening or Level IV eligibility phases.
27
This means that although African American and Hispanic students are still disproportionally
underrepresented in Level IV services, they are actually being placed in Level IV services at higher
rates than would be expected given their NNAT, CogAT, and GBRS scores. African American students
with similar scores as their European American peers were identified for Level IV services at a rate of
5.7 to 1. Similarly, while Asian American students are disproportionally overrepresented in Level IV
services compared to their enrollment in the overall FCPS population, this rate is close to what
should be expected given their test scores. Asian American students with similar scores as their
European American peers were identified for Level IV services at a rate of 1.1 to 1 - almost identical.
When we look at the NNAT alone, we still see no evidence of a bias against African American or
Hispanic students. The NNAT is described by the publisher as a "culture neutral" test of general
ability. When we control for NNAT scores, African American students were still found eligible for
Level IV services at a rate of 1.5 to 1 - less than when we control for all available data, but still no
evidence of any negative bias against African American students.
In short, this suggests that much of what FCPS has been doing to increase the diversity of Level IV
services has been working. If Level IV services were based on CogAT, NNAT, and GBRS scores alone,
far fewer African American and Hispanic students would be identified as Level IV eligible than they
are today. Why is there such a disparity? It is likely due to larger inequality and the achievement
gaps shown in Table 6. Nationally, students enter school with different levels of content mastery
and readiness. These achievement gaps across groups exist on nearly every test and when any of
those tests are used for program admission, these disproportional enrollment figures should be
expected. Currently, it appears that FCPS is putting forth significant effort to increase the Level IV
eligibility rate of African American and Hispanic student, but the achievement gaps between groups
is so large that this effort is still not enough to make the Level IV population reflective of the overall
student population.

There is not some epidemic of White and Asian parents gaming the system. FCPS is making a heroic effort to identify pretty much any URM who seems capable of handling AAP.

Except for all those kids whose families dropped $20k on years of intense prep classes to ensure their children had access to entry exams before the exam...

The equity report showed that GBRS is much more important for AAP selection than test scores. Test prep for NNAT and CogAT would largely be a waste of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where in God's name are alleged $20k prep classes for the NNAT ot COGAT?

A student in DC's class disappeared for 3 days the wk before the COGAT last yr, not sick, and I strongly suspect he went to one of these cram places. I cannot believe though that anyone in their right mind shells out $20k for 2nd grade test prep

A poster made up this number, to go with the claim that Curie provided the test for TJ admissions.
Reality is you can spend 4k over two years and they showed kids some questions that have happened over the past years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are so many dumb woke/liberal talking points on here

Woke? liberal? Stop parroting Fox News. People are pointing out flaws in the system. I have an AAP kid. She thrived in AAP vs gen ed. But I still think the selection process if flawed and that the whole AAP=all the smart kids and gen ed=not smart kids is something silly AAP parents tell themselves to make them feel better.

I actually agree the selection is flawed when folks with the right skin color are getting selected at 5 times the rate of folks with other skin colors

Aap is supposed to be smart kids but now skin color is more important than actual aptitude

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are so many dumb woke/liberal talking points on here

Woke? liberal? Stop parroting Fox News. People are pointing out flaws in the system. I have an AAP kid. She thrived in AAP vs gen ed. But I still think the selection process if flawed and that the whole AAP=all the smart kids and gen ed=not smart kids is something silly AAP parents tell themselves to make them feel better.

I actually agree the selection is flawed when folks with the right skin color are getting selected at 5 times the rate of folks with other skin colors

Aap is supposed to be smart kids but now skin color is more important than actual aptitude

PP you are responding to….most of the AAP kids in both of ES and MS schools are white and Asian??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are so many dumb woke/liberal talking points on here

Woke? liberal? Stop parroting Fox News. People are pointing out flaws in the system. I have an AAP kid. She thrived in AAP vs gen ed. But I still think the selection process if flawed and that the whole AAP=all the smart kids and gen ed=not smart kids is something silly AAP parents tell themselves to make them feel better.

I actually agree the selection is flawed when folks with the right skin color are getting selected at 5 times the rate of folks with other skin colors

Aap is supposed to be smart kids but now skin color is more important than actual aptitude

PP you are responding to….most of the AAP kids in both of ES and MS schools are white and Asian??

a PP already broke it out

URM can get in with scores in the 120s vs whites and asians who get ignored with scores in the high 130s and even 140s

When you start caring more about woke/liberalism vs actual aptitude you get this kind of insanity

PS most URM think woke white and asian liberals are idiots.