Minorities almost never file the appeals that can help secure their admission to AAP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will point out two things. First, as a former elementary teacher, I think most Hispanic and black parents are way, way too deferential to teachers' assessment of their children, including AAP resource teacher. In my experience white and especially Asian parents are much, much more willing to go over a teacher's head and advocate for their children to be in the AAP program. They go and appeal and get a wisc. They parent referral so the student is screened regardless. Black and hispanic parents seem to accept a teacher's assessment that their child shouldn't be in the program and leave it at that.

I could totally see this. My spouse, who is in a pediatric specialty, says that white, educated parents are much more likely to question his diagnosis, ask for other explanations, etc. In contrast, he said that black and Latino families (who are less likely to be well-educated in our urban, gentrifying area) are less likely to ask questions or challenge him, and more apt to just accept his opinion as the authority. FWIW. I think part of it is education/health literacy, and part of it may be cultural (deference to authority).

Yes, this was my experience as an African American mother with three kids in the AAP program. All three kids were in pool, but on the low side of the cut-offs. All three kids were actively discouraged by the AART from the AAP program and didn't get level III services during K-2. I parent referral all three and after looking at the packet, saw the low GBRS and frankly weak work samples complied by said AART and teachers and took matters into my own hands. All three were rejected, I hustled and got all three WISCs and all three were eventually accepted.

It's an uphill battle. I see a lot of people of color either blindly accepting a teacher's or AART's assessment. I didn't and there were still a zillion hoops to jump through all the while trying to convince myself I wasn't setting up my kids' for failure if they ended up in the AAP program and couldn't handle the pace.

My view of it is that it's a good program, all of my kids seem well prepared for middle/high school. But it's definitely set up in a way to pull a good portion of well resourced parents who have no problem fighting and advocating for their children from the general classroom population.

Thank you for sharing your experiences. And I'm not being snarky. This is insight only you can have and many people would never otherwise be exposed to or even consider.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will point out two things. First, as a former elementary teacher, I think most Hispanic and black parents are way, way too deferential to teachers' assessment of their children, including AAP resource teacher. In my experience white and especially Asian parents are much, much more willing to go over a teacher's head and advocate for their children to be in the AAP program. They go and appeal and get a wisc. They parent referral so the student is screened regardless. Black and hispanic parents seem to accept a teacher's assessment that their child shouldn't be in the program and leave it at that.

I could totally see this. My spouse, who is in a pediatric specialty, says that white, educated parents are much more likely to question his diagnosis, ask for other explanations, etc. In contrast, he said that black and Latino families (who are less likely to be well-educated in our urban, gentrifying area) are less likely to ask questions or challenge him, and more apt to just accept his opinion as the authority. FWIW. I think part of it is education/health literacy, and part of it may be cultural (deference to authority).

Yes, this was my experience as an African American mother with three kids in the AAP program. All three kids were in pool, but on the low side of the cut-offs. All three kids were actively discouraged by the AART from the AAP program and didn't get level III services during K-2. I parent referral all three and after looking at the packet, saw the low GBRS and frankly weak work samples complied by said AART and teachers and took matters into my own hands. All three were rejected, I hustled and got all three WISCs and all three were eventually accepted.

It's an uphill battle. I see a lot of people of color either blindly accepting a teacher's or AART's assessment. I didn't and there were still a zillion hoops to jump through all the while trying to convince myself I wasn't setting up my kids' for failure if they ended up in the AAP program and couldn't handle the pace.

My view of it is that it's a good program, all of my kids seem well prepared for middle/high school. But it's definitely set up in a way to pull a good portion of well resourced parents who have no problem fighting and advocating for their children from the general classroom population.

There is no level III in K-2.

There actually is, I believe. My kids got pull outs during K-2. They called it Level II in K and Level III in first and second.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will point out two things. First, as a former elementary teacher, I think most Hispanic and black parents are way, way too deferential to teachers' assessment of their children, including AAP resource teacher. In my experience white and especially Asian parents are much, much more willing to go over a teacher's head and advocate for their children to be in the AAP program. They go and appeal and get a wisc. They parent referral so the student is screened regardless. Black and hispanic parents seem to accept a teacher's assessment that their child shouldn't be in the program and leave it at that.

I could totally see this. My spouse, who is in a pediatric specialty, says that white, educated parents are much more likely to question his diagnosis, ask for other explanations, etc. In contrast, he said that black and Latino families (who are less likely to be well-educated in our urban, gentrifying area) are less likely to ask questions or challenge him, and more apt to just accept his opinion as the authority. FWIW. I think part of it is education/health literacy, and part of it may be cultural (deference to authority).

Yes, this was my experience as an African American mother with three kids in the AAP program. All three kids were in pool, but on the low side of the cut-offs. All three kids were actively discouraged by the AART from the AAP program and didn't get level III services during K-2. I parent referral all three and after looking at the packet, saw the low GBRS and frankly weak work samples complied by said AART and teachers and took matters into my own hands. All three were rejected, I hustled and got all three WISCs and all three were eventually accepted.

It's an uphill battle. I see a lot of people of color either blindly accepting a teacher's or AART's assessment. I didn't and there were still a zillion hoops to jump through all the while trying to convince myself I wasn't setting up my kids' for failure if they ended up in the AAP program and couldn't handle the pace.

My view of it is that it's a good program, all of my kids seem well prepared for middle/high school. But it's definitely set up in a way to pull a good portion of well resourced parents who have no problem fighting and advocating for their children from the general classroom population.

There is no level III in K-2.

There actually is, I believe. My kids got pull outs during K-2. They called it Level II in K and Level III in first and second.

I think it is Level II in K-2 and Level III for 3-6.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All three kids were in pool, but on the low side of the cut-offs. All three kids were actively discouraged by the AART from the AAP program and didn't get level III services during K-2.

There is no level III in K-2.

There actually is, I believe. My kids got pull outs during K-2. They called it Level II in K and Level III in first and second.

Not sure if you are the same person, but is it actually, or do you believe? Which one is it? Before you post on a forum please make sure to check your resources.

A question for the original quoted poster: How did the AART discourage your kids (actively or passively) from the AAP program? Was it by not including them in the unavailable Level III services?

[Anonymous]

Only some schools do pullouts. Some schools do a very occasional enrichment for the whole class instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will point out two things. First, as a former elementary teacher, I think most Hispanic and black parents are way, way too deferential to teachers' assessment of their children, including AAP resource teacher. In my experience white and especially Asian parents are much, much more willing to go over a teacher's head and advocate for their children to be in the AAP program. They go and appeal and get a wisc. They parent referral so the student is screened regardless. Black and hispanic parents seem to accept a teacher's assessment that their child shouldn't be in the program and leave it at that.

I could totally see this. My spouse, who is in a pediatric specialty, says that white, educated parents are much more likely to question his diagnosis, ask for other explanations, etc. In contrast, he said that black and Latino families (who are less likely to be well-educated in our urban, gentrifying area) are less likely to ask questions or challenge him, and more apt to just accept his opinion as the authority. FWIW. I think part of it is education/health literacy, and part of it may be cultural (deference to authority).

Is your husband ever wrong? Does he every change his mind based on his patients' parents observations?

PP here. Whether my spouse is wrong or not is a bit beside the point (although every clinician's working diagnosis is wrong at least on occasion, speaking from my own, non-peds experience). What my point was is that black/Latino, less educated parents are often less likely to question authority, in spouse's experience.

Also, just FWIW we are black, so I think it has more to do with a given group's reluctance or willingness to question authority (although I can imagine that there might be even more reticence to question authority when the authority figure in question is white, for various reasons).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All three kids were in pool, but on the low side of the cut-offs. All three kids were actively discouraged by the AART from the AAP program and didn't get level III services during K-2.

There is no level III in K-2.

There actually is, I believe. My kids got pull outs during K-2. They called it Level II in K and Level III in first and second.

Not sure if you are the same person, but is it actually, or do you believe? Which one is it? Before you post on a forum please make sure to check your resources.

A question for the original quoted poster: How did the AART discourage your kids (actively or passively) from the AAP program? Was it by not including them in the unavailable Level III services?

I'm the AA poster with the three kids. I think what I meant was that they got no pull-outs at all during K-2. I supplemented with them at home and took them to Kumon/Mathnasieum. But they got zero extensions during the day.

We had the same AART for all three of my kids. For all of them, she did the absolute bare minimum when it came to complying their packets. She also said that all three of my kids were doing well in their current class situation and she didn't see a need to send them off to a center when they were thriving there. By the time the third kid came around, she actually rolled her eyes when I handed her the parent referral form and completely avoided me when I informed the principal that we were heading to a center.

And yes, I mentioned this to the principal. Nothing was done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Only some schools do pullouts. Some schools do a very occasional enrichment for the whole class instead.

I have a large problem with this, there is such a large inconsistency across Fairfax county schools and it is one of the reasons (at least I believe) that AAP has become such an aggressive/competitive process for parents. Some parents simply can't afford to buy or rent in the school zones where the public schools offer 1) pull out services/differentiated services for level II/III. 2) basic sold curriculums for general education children.

I was shocked by the standards of local zoned schools and just assumed that all public schools 1) didn't do homework 2) didn't do spelling/word groups 3) didn't do reading at home (books etc). I was very, very wrong. Our eldest was in pool and when we went for the visit for the center, it wasn't even a question about whether he should go, the educational standards were so different (even for the general education children at that school). We are hoping our second child makes it in as well, and while he made the pool, if he is rejected, I will get a WISC and hope for the best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only some schools do pullouts. Some schools do a very occasional enrichment for the whole class instead.

I have a large problem with this, there is such a large inconsistency across Fairfax county schools and it is one of the reasons (at least I believe) that AAP has become such an aggressive/competitive process for parents. Some parents simply can't afford to buy or rent in the school zones where the public schools offer 1) pull out services/differentiated services for level II/III. 2) basic sold curriculums for general education children.

I was shocked by the standards of local zoned schools and just assumed that all public schools 1) didn't do homework 2) didn't do spelling/word groups 3) didn't do reading at home (books etc). I was very, very wrong. Our eldest was in pool and when we went for the visit for the center, it wasn't even a question about whether he should go, the educational standards were so different (even for the general education children at that school). We are hoping our second child makes it in as well, and while he made the pool, if he is rejected, I will get a WISC and hope for the best.

We are at a center school and so far, in K-2, there has been no homework (I like this but other parents are irate), no spelling/word groups, no differentiation in math, no pull outs.

[Anonymous]

I think we are approaching the whole GT education incorrectly. It should not be something that should be in the forefront to close the achievement gap.

The achievement gap is not beginning in GT education but in regular on-grade education. Sure, as an end result you are seeing less minorities at the GT level, but pushing students into GT who do not have the support (parents, language barrier, poverty, family dynamic) is not going to make these students successful.

As an aside, I have yet to see a student really thrive in a GT program who got in by the appeals process and did not have enormous amount of support at home (tutors and private college counselors). What happens when someone starts helps those people to appeal who do not have the wherewithal to appeal on their own? What happens if their students get in? What kind of resources can the parents muster up to support their child who did not get in in the first place? The outlook is grim here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All three kids were in pool, but on the low side of the cut-offs. All three kids were actively discouraged by the AART from the AAP program and didn't get level III services during K-2.

There is no level III in K-2.

There actually is, I believe. My kids got pull outs during K-2. They called it Level II in K and Level III in first and second.

Not sure if you are the same person, but is it actually, or do you believe? Which one is it? Before you post on a forum please make sure to check your resources.

A question for the original quoted poster: How did the AART discourage your kids (actively or passively) from the AAP program? Was it by not including them in the unavailable Level III services?

I'm the AA poster with the three kids. I think what I meant was that they got no pull-outs at all during K-2. I supplemented with them at home and took them to Kumon/Mathnasieum. But they got zero extensions during the day.

We had the same AART for all three of my kids. For all of them, she did the absolute bare minimum when it came to complying their packets. She also said that all three of my kids were doing well in their current class situation and she didn't see a need to send them off to a center when they were thriving there. By the time the third kid came around, she actually rolled her eyes when I handed her the parent referral form and completely avoided me when I informed the principal that we were heading to a center.

And yes, I mentioned this to the principal. Nothing was done.

Your story reminds me of my experience: My parents immigrated here and spoke accented English. My test scores barely missed the cutoff, and the school discouraged my parents from trying to push to get me into the GT program (old name for AAP). They acted like she was being a problem and annoying. Well, my mom didn't take no for an answer, I got privately tested (expensive for our family), and ultimately got into the GT program. Ended up going to TJ, Ivy League, and Grad School.

Thank you mom!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Topic: Minorities almost never file the appeals that can help secure their admission to AAP

This is just a statement!

What is the question? What are we discussing?

We are discussing why that might be the case.

So you are throwing a NOT well documented article, based on subjectivity and hear say, to a bunch of people who most likely do not have the required specific case knowledge and qualifications to discuss this properly, so you can figure out why this issue (for which you don't even have proof) exists?

If you believe that this issue exists, what are you personally doing to help and ensure that this problem is resolved? How did you come to this belief and how did you ensure that you are actually dealing with an issue?

The WaPo article pointed to an AP investigation, which is also described in this article. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/school-systems-appeals-process-leaves-some-minorities-out/2018/02/03/1dbc302c-08eb-11e8-aa61-f3391373867e_story.html?utm_term=.e86b2b3f05f7

Actually, although I understand that this is expensive, the obvious answer seems to be to administer a WISC or other formal IQ test to all in pool candidates -- perhaps even lowering the pool cutoff to 130 or 128 on either test or any subscore in order to capture the largest number of students.

It would be incredibly costly and time consuming to administer a WISC to thousands of students every year. While it is not perfect, it is much ore feasible to use a screener.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Topic: Minorities almost never file the appeals that can help secure their admission to AAP

This is just a statement!

What is the question? What are we discussing?

We are discussing why that might be the case.

So you are throwing a NOT well documented article, based on subjectivity and hear say, to a bunch of people who most likely do not have the required specific case knowledge and qualifications to discuss this properly, so you can figure out why this issue (for which you don't even have proof) exists?

If you believe that this issue exists, what are you personally doing to help and ensure that this problem is resolved? How did you come to this belief and how did you ensure that you are actually dealing with an issue?

The WaPo article pointed to an AP investigation, which is also described in this article. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/school-systems-appeals-process-leaves-some-minorities-out/2018/02/03/1dbc302c-08eb-11e8-aa61-f3391373867e_story.html?utm_term=.e86b2b3f05f7

Actually, although I understand that this is expensive, the obvious answer seems to be to administer a WISC or other formal IQ test to all in pool candidates -- perhaps even lowering the pool cutoff to 130 or 128 on either test or any subscore in order to capture the largest number of students.

It would be incredibly costly and time consuming to administer a WISC to thousands of students every year. While it is not perfect, it is much ore feasible to use a screener.

It would be another $1.2m to administer a $400 WISC to every potential applicant with a pool of 3000. If that virtually or entirely eliminates appeals, referrals, and the screening committees at each school and the central screening committee, it probably wouldn't come out to nearly as much. Is that prohibitive, if it reduces prepping, complaining, worries over underrepresented minorities, etc.?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think we are approaching the whole GT education incorrectly. It should not be something that should be in the forefront to close the achievement gap.

The achievement gap is not beginning in GT education but in regular on-grade education. Sure, as an end result you are seeing less minorities at the GT level, but pushing students into GT who do not have the support (parents, language barrier, poverty, family dynamic) is not going to make these students successful.

As an aside, I have yet to see a student really thrive in a GT program who got in by the appeals process and did not have enormous amount of support at home (tutors and private college counselors). What happens when someone starts helps those people to appeal who do not have the wherewithal to appeal on their own? What happens if their students get in? What kind of resources can the parents muster up to support their child who did not get in in the first place? The outlook is grim here.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Topic: Minorities almost never file the appeals that can help secure their admission to AAP

This is just a statement!

What is the question? What are we discussing?

We are discussing why that might be the case.

So you are throwing a NOT well documented article, based on subjectivity and hear say, to a bunch of people who most likely do not have the required specific case knowledge and qualifications to discuss this properly, so you can figure out why this issue (for which you don't even have proof) exists?

If you believe that this issue exists, what are you personally doing to help and ensure that this problem is resolved? How did you come to this belief and how did you ensure that you are actually dealing with an issue?

The WaPo article pointed to an AP investigation, which is also described in this article. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/school-systems-appeals-process-leaves-some-minorities-out/2018/02/03/1dbc302c-08eb-11e8-aa61-f3391373867e_story.html?utm_term=.e86b2b3f05f7

Actually, although I understand that this is expensive, the obvious answer seems to be to administer a WISC or other formal IQ test to all in pool candidates -- perhaps even lowering the pool cutoff to 130 or 128 on either test or any subscore in order to capture the largest number of students.

It would be incredibly costly and time consuming to administer a WISC to thousands of students every year. While it is not perfect, it is much ore feasible to use a screener.

It would be another $1.2m to administer a $400 WISC to every potential applicant with a pool of 3000. If that virtually or entirely eliminates appeals, referrals, and the screening committees at each school and the central screening committee, it probably wouldn't come out to nearly as much. Is that prohibitive, if it reduces prepping, complaining, worries over underrepresented minorities, etc.?

It will not reduce prepping, complaining or worries over underrepresented minorities.

People will still prep, complain and worry. They will complain about the prepping, about the person administering the test, about the fairness and design of the test, and about the cultural issues associated with the format of the test. People will still complain that some parents hothouse their kids, thus leading to higher IQ scores, about the test taking conditions, and about the influence of the teacher to the students' self esteem and the teachers' influence on the test taker. We'll be discussing the subjective portion of the test proctor, and what assumption they make about the test taker. We'll be discussing that the reading and math portion of the IQ test should be eliminated because they can be prepped, etc, etc, etc.

Then we'd be back on square one.