HOPE SCORES

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes .
But with these scores I’m not optimistic at all!

When you appeal, make sure you do every possible parent write-up (if you didn't do the questionnaire before, do it). Provide specific stories that illustrate every HOPE criteria where your child got a "sometimes." Make sure to paint a detailed picture of your child. In addition, grab the old GBRS, and while using stories about the HOPE criteria also think of the way GBRS talks about kids as giving you a list of keywords to hit on.

Add work samples that show complex academic-type work. I've used things like:

* a several word dictionary for a language my kid was developing (the county shows an example of hieroglyphics developed by a kid, which is a similar idea)
* Reflections Art Contest literature entries with the artist's statement
* NRICH math problems solved by my kid
* a math board game my kid made up (this kid was board game obsessed)
* an imaginary society my kid came up with while playing (this kid did this regularly, so it was pretty natural - I just photographed it and had her explain it)

Our AART also said the kid should write an explanation of their work samples, in the first person.

Any ideas for what to include in appeal if child got low score for “Is sensitive to larger or deeper issues of human concern”? Are there behavior examples for what teachers see in class that would demonstrate an always? Or what lessons in school give teachers visibility to score this one? Wondering what to include in an appeal if not high from teacher in application. Thanks,

Is there something your child has noticed that shows that? Like being sensitive to other kids getting left out or something? Something age appropriate and not forced, but just generally showin caring about people or the environment?

My kid took religious idea into heart, and often ask questions about God and death and those weighty questions. I put it on parent questionnaire but my wife took it off, saying it sounds too fake. But it's real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is so much speculation and guess work around this process. Is it possible for FCPS to have an AAP workshop to explain how decisions are made? It sounds like subjective decisions are more than objective decisions

Did your AART not explain it at the full-time AAP presentation? They mean it when they say it's holistic, scores are just part of it, and they're looking for a fairly fuzzily defined picture of a child that "needs" advanced academics. Our AART explained that to us about 3 different ways.

Apparently they get 25 minutes of training on what that looks like and then they go vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes .
But with these scores I’m not optimistic at all!

When you appeal, make sure you do every possible parent write-up (if you didn't do the questionnaire before, do it). Provide specific stories that illustrate every HOPE criteria where your child got a "sometimes." Make sure to paint a detailed picture of your child. In addition, grab the old GBRS, and while using stories about the HOPE criteria also think of the way GBRS talks about kids as giving you a list of keywords to hit on.

Add work samples that show complex academic-type work. I've used things like:

* a several word dictionary for a language my kid was developing (the county shows an example of hieroglyphics developed by a kid, which is a similar idea)
* Reflections Art Contest literature entries with the artist's statement
* NRICH math problems solved by my kid
* a math board game my kid made up (this kid was board game obsessed)
* an imaginary society my kid came up with while playing (this kid did this regularly, so it was pretty natural - I just photographed it and had her explain it)

Our AART also said the kid should write an explanation of their work samples, in the first person.

Any ideas for what to include in appeal if child got low score for “Is sensitive to larger or deeper issues of human concern”? Are there behavior examples for what teachers see in class that would demonstrate an always? Or what lessons in school give teachers visibility to score this one? Wondering what to include in an appeal if not high from teacher in application. Thanks,

Is there something your child has noticed that shows that? Like being sensitive to other kids getting left out or something? Something age appropriate and not forced, but just generally showin caring about people or the environment?

My kid took religious idea into heart, and often ask questions about God and death and those weighty questions. I put it on parent questionnaire but my wife took it off, saying it sounds too fake. But it's real.

PP here. My 4th grader did that too and I didn't put it in because I didn't know if the committee would understand the particular theological nuance she was referring to (it was about a very contested doctrine in the Christian church where different denominations disagree and have for centuries). But if it's easy enough to understand and doesn't require explaining the finer points of your religion, I wouldn't worry about it sounding fake. Some kids are just deep thinkers. Teachers have to know that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this program called HOPE? As if otherwise there is none?

It stands for having opportunity promotes excellence

They need to change the name for the kids who don't make it into this program. It's tone deaf.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this program called HOPE? As if otherwise there is none?

It stands for having opportunity promotes excellence

They need to change the name for the kids who don't make it into this program. It's tone deaf.

Unlike GBRS, FCPS didn't make up HOPE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this program called HOPE? As if otherwise there is none?

It stands for having opportunity promotes excellence

They need to change the name for the kids who don't make it into this program. It's tone deaf.

Unlike GBRS, FCPS didn't make up HOPE.

And it’s usage goes way beyond FCPS and/or our AAP program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is so much speculation and guess work around this process. Is it possible for FCPS to have an AAP workshop to explain how decisions are made? It sounds like subjective decisions are more than objective decisions

Did your AART not explain it at the full-time AAP presentation? They mean it when they say it's holistic, scores are just part of it, and they're looking for a fairly fuzzily defined picture of a child that "needs" advanced academics. Our AART explained that to us about 3 different ways.

Apparently they get 25 minutes of training on what that looks like and then they go vote.

It’s a full day training several weeks prior to the screening days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is so much speculation and guess work around this process. Is it possible for FCPS to have an AAP workshop to explain how decisions are made? It sounds like subjective decisions are more than objective decisions

Really what it should be is X score OR teacher recommendation. That would really save a lot of time assembling a packet for 2000+ kids, having a committee meet and review 2000+ kids etc., and go a long way to make things more transparent for families.

Equity is important, and the HOPE approach tackles the equity gap head-on. Previously, we let scores and recommendations dictate, leading to a widening equity gap. HOPE allows comparative rating within cultural groups, which should get us to desired equity and diversity. HOPE offers a new sense of hope for a better equitable tomorrow.

wait.. what? So HOPE takes into consideration the race and ethnicity too? Neither am I opposing nor am I supporting that approach but I never knew AAP considered that too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is so much speculation and guess work around this process. Is it possible for FCPS to have an AAP workshop to explain how decisions are made? It sounds like subjective decisions are more than objective decisions

Really what it should be is X score OR teacher recommendation. That would really save a lot of time assembling a packet for 2000+ kids, having a committee meet and review 2000+ kids etc., and go a long way to make things more transparent for families.

Equity is important, and the HOPE approach tackles the equity gap head-on. Previously, we let scores and recommendations dictate, leading to a widening equity gap. HOPE allows comparative rating within cultural groups, which should get us to desired equity and diversity. HOPE offers a new sense of hope for a better equitable tomorrow.

wait.. what? So HOPE takes into consideration the race and ethnicity too? Neither am I opposing nor am I supporting that approach but I never knew AAP considered that too.

The person you’re responding to is a troll who pretends to be pro-equity and then exaggerates or outright makes things up. For example, implying scores are being completely ignored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this program called HOPE? As if otherwise there is none?

It stands for having opportunity promotes excellence

They need to change the name for the kids who don't make it into this program. It's tone deaf.

Unlike GBRS, FCPS didn't make up HOPE.

And it’s usage goes way beyond FCPS and/or our AAP program.

The core principle of HOPE is equitable identification by comparing kids within their cultural group. Without this core principle, there is nothing unique to HOPE.

[Anonymous]

If you’ve got a kid with great COGAT, iReady, grades, and solid work samples *in comparison to the peer group at their school,
* (which is the piece parents don’t see), weak HOPE scores alone are not going to keep your kid out. Most kids in full time are going to have a range of scores on the HOPE attributes.

HOPE scores are going to make more of a difference for a borderline kid (looking at scores/grades/work samples) who could go either way— a very strong HOPE profile might tip the committee to find them eligible.

Occasionally you get a wacky committee decision, sure, which is why appeals are a thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this program called HOPE? As if otherwise there is none?

It stands for having opportunity promotes excellence

They need to change the name for the kids who don't make it into this program. It's tone deaf.

Unlike GBRS, FCPS didn't make up HOPE.

And it’s usage goes way beyond FCPS and/or our AAP program.

The core principle of HOPE is equitable identification by comparing kids within their cultural group. Without this core principle, there is nothing unique to HOPE.

Not sure I'd say that. All the social stuff is totally, very different than GBRS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is so much speculation and guess work around this process. Is it possible for FCPS to have an AAP workshop to explain how decisions are made? It sounds like subjective decisions are more than objective decisions

Really what it should be is X score OR teacher recommendation. That would really save a lot of time assembling a packet for 2000+ kids, having a committee meet and review 2000+ kids etc., and go a long way to make things more transparent for families.

Equity is important, and the HOPE approach tackles the equity gap head-on. Previously, we let scores and recommendations dictate, leading to a widening equity gap. HOPE allows comparative rating within cultural groups, which should get us to desired equity and diversity. HOPE offers a new sense of hope for a better equitable tomorrow.

wait.. what? So HOPE takes into consideration the race and ethnicity too? Neither am I opposing nor am I supporting that approach but I never knew AAP considered that too.

FCPS has gotten burnt using the words race and ethnicity openly, so safer alternatives have been "equity factors" and "experience factors".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this program called HOPE? As if otherwise there is none?

It stands for having opportunity promotes excellence

They need to change the name for the kids who don't make it into this program. It's tone deaf.

Unlike GBRS, FCPS didn't make up HOPE.

And it’s usage goes way beyond FCPS and/or our AAP program.

The core principle of HOPE is equitable identification by comparing kids within their cultural group. Without this core principle, there is nothing unique to HOPE.

Untrue. HOPE (developed by Perdue) was chosen because it has been evaluated with validity and reliability metrics. GBRS was an interval FCPS measure with no such evaluation, which is why the audit of AAP recommended replacing it.

[Anonymous]

DC is IN, with strong but not insane test scores: NNAT 128, COGAT 131, IReady 99th for math and reading.

HOPE scores were a mixed bag: 2 always, 4 almost always, 3 often, 2 sometimes.

Marked "exceptional talent" for math and reading.