FCPS potential changes to AAP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Umm.. no.

25% is a statistical measure.

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

Heh- they seemed to be having a little trouble with the math involved, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I understand the AAP program, the kids selected for it are suppose to be the top 1% of kids in the county based on the NNAT, CogAT, GBRS, and work samples? If the number of kids who qualify are so skewed that one ethnicity/race has a larger proportion represented in that 1%, then there is an issue with the selection process. No race/ethnicity is smarter then another.

The larger issue is that the socio economic divide makes it harder for the 1% of kids whose parents are not as well off and educated to be able to compete with the 1% of kids whose parents are educated and/or well off. There is no easy answer to that problem but setting quotas is not going to deal with the issues.

The other problem is that kids parents prep their kids for tests that they should not be prepped for. And kids whose parents spend more time reading to them, doing workbooks with them, and the like have an advantage. Nevermnd the kids whose parents send them to prep centers to prepare for the test.

When it gets down to it, AAP should only include a little more then 1% of the student population, if you accept that because of a highly educated work force that lives in the area there are more people who are potentially in that top 1%, and not the increasingly large number of kids that it is accepting. If we are going to argue that the program should be larger, then drop the test score needed to the top 10%.

But you don’t deal with this issue by developing quotas.

A lot of the Asian American students that get into AAP are recent immigrants and of below average income. So these people would not be considered High socioeconomic status students.

It’s a myth that all Asian Americans are wealthy and educated. In fact there’s a sizable low income population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought quotas were unconstitutional?

It’s complicated.

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

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

Quotas will discriminate against asian kids, period.

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

It is completely racist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the short non humble brag answer is:

Yes, asian kids are smarter and will get the shaft if fcps decides that their percentages in AAP must exactly match everyone else's percentages in AAP.

It is blatant racism and discrimination against asians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, I think the plan is to put Level IV in every school and then phase out the centers. So many parents want their kids in AAP that I think they will make enough space to keep all the parents happy. Well, until they start complaining that the program is not all it’s cracked up to be...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought quotas were unconstitutional?

It’s complicated.

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

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

Quotas will discriminate against asian kids, period.

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

It is completely racist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the short non humble brag answer is:

Yes, asian kids are smarter and will get the shaft if fcps decides that their percentages in AAP must exactly match everyone else's percentages in AAP.

It is blatant racism and discrimination against asians.

The short answer is Asians prep more for the CogAT and NNAT, and work harder academically. Their hard work would be overlooked in the AAP selection process, but not the TJ selection process. TJ is what really matters anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I understand the AAP program, the kids selected for it are suppose to be the top 1% of kids in the county based on the NNAT, CogAT, GBRS, and work samples? If the number of kids who qualify are so skewed that one ethnicity/race has a larger proportion represented in that 1%, then there is an issue with the selection process. No race/ethnicity is smarter then another.

The larger issue is that the socio economic divide makes it harder for the 1% of kids whose parents are not as well off and educated to be able to compete with the 1% of kids whose parents are educated and/or well off. There is no easy answer to that problem but setting quotas is not going to deal with the issues.

The other problem is that kids parents prep their kids for tests that they should not be prepped for. And kids whose parents spend more time reading to them, doing workbooks with them, and the like have an advantage. Nevermnd the kids whose parents send them to prep centers to prepare for the test.

When it gets down to it, AAP should only include a little more then 1% of the student population, if you accept that because of a highly educated work force that lives in the area there are more people who are potentially in that top 1%, and not the increasingly large number of kids that it is accepting. If we are going to argue that the program should be larger, then drop the test score needed to the top 10%.

But you don’t deal with this issue by developing quotas.

A lot of the Asian American students that get into AAP are recent immigrants and of below average income. So these people would not be considered High socioeconomic status students.

It’s a myth that all Asian Americans are wealthy and educated. In fact there’s a sizable low income population.

Isn't the FRM rate in AAP <10%? I would agree there are probably plenty of Asian kids who get in with families below the average income, but I really doubt there's a sizable population of truly low income Asian kids in AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought quotas were unconstitutional?

It’s complicated.

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

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

Quotas will discriminate against asian kids, period.

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

It is completely racist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the short non humble brag answer is:

Yes, asian kids are smarter and will get the shaft if fcps decides that their percentages in AAP must exactly match everyone else's percentages in AAP.

It is blatant racism and discrimination against asians.

The short answer is Asians prep more for the CogAT and NNAT, and work harder academically. Their hard work would be overlooked in the AAP selection process, but not the TJ selection process. TJ is what really matters anyway.

TJ does not matter. Most of the class goes to UVA which would be the same outcome if the students stayed at their base schools

It's only a matter of time before people come for TJ. Liberals/progressives won't be satistifed until it's 25% white 25% asian 25% hipsanic and 25% African American. That is what this is ultimately all about

Personally I don't care. I think the focus on TJ is unhealthy again most students who go there would get the same college result staying at their base school.

[Anonymous]

I think TJ should have a qualifying exam (and possibly essays) and then be lottery. If base schools can provide the same college outcomes, then we should treat TJ as a lucky extra -- and lottery will make that happen.

The highly talented will rise up at all schools (perhaps we should create more opportunities for those who do well on the TJ test, but don't get in, to do research with GMU or other colleges -- creating partnerships with colleges within the base HSs for the many who missed out on TJ).

[Anonymous]

I know for us, with a child going to a center for Level IV, where our local school does not have LLIV - our local school also does not offer advanced math until 5th grade and level III pullouts amount to one hour a week. Calling that “Level III” relative to full time AAP in Level IV suggest they are incremental in name but in reality they are far from incremental as that is a huge difference. It is possible that having more than just an hour a week pullouts available at the local school would make parents less motivated towards the AAP center. My kid has a 134 WISC from GMU so I don’t think our child is one who is blatantly in the wrong place for being at an AAP center, but I will say that the lack of more at our local school which we otherwise liked was the main driving factor in choosing the center. I think it wiuld be smart to address these big gaps between levels 3 and 4.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know for us, with a child going to a center for Level IV, where our local school does not have LLIV - our local school also does not offer advanced math until 5th grade and level III pullouts amount to one hour a week. Calling that “Level III” relative to full time AAP in Level IV suggest they are incremental in name but in reality they are far from incremental as that is a huge difference. It is possible that having more than just an hour a week pullouts available at the local school would make parents less motivated towards the AAP center. My kid has a 134 WISC from GMU so I don’t think our child is one who is blatantly in the wrong place for being at an AAP center, but I will say that the lack of more at our local school which we otherwise liked was the main driving factor in choosing the center. I think it wiuld be smart to address these big gaps between levels 3 and 4.

AGREE!

There is a huge cliff between level 3 (which is almost nothing -- 45 min per week for 6 weeks x4 if your kid is picked up for each core subject pull out) vs. full time everyday with Level 4. I have one on each side of that cliff. The one who went to the center for Level 4 had a much more rigorous experience. I regretted not referring our other child (who was older, so it was too late by the time I realized the difference).

That said, I still believe that 75% of HS and college and life success is about effort and attitude. Smart doesn't compare to effort when it comes to excelling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There is a huge cliff between level 3 (which is almost nothing -- 45 min per week for 6 weeks x4 if your kid is picked up for each core subject pull out) vs. full time everyday with Level 4.

If they move to a model with LLIV at every school, that should help Level III students be placed in the AAP classroom at least in areas of strength.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is a huge cliff between level 3 (which is almost nothing -- 45 min per week for 6 weeks x4 if your kid is picked up for each core subject pull out) vs. full time everyday with Level 4.

If they move to a model with LLIV at every school, that should help Level III students be placed in the AAP classroom at least in areas of strength.

While that is true, I think it somewhat misses the point that even without just putting level IV everywhere, changes and improvements to level III (which is already everywhere) could have impact in Level IV withiut even directly chaning Level IV. It seems like level III could be more without having to jump to level IV everywhere. In other words instead of creating kire level IV why jot consider that a more robust level III could be a hreat solution for a lot of atudents and also pacifies the people who moan that level IV is a joke already, watered down, etc (whether I agree with that or not).

[Anonymous]

Let’s get some more white kids in the level 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think TJ should have a qualifying exam (and possibly essays) and then be lottery. If base schools can provide the same college outcomes, then we should treat TJ as a lucky extra -- and lottery will make that happen.

The highly talented will rise up at all schools (perhaps we should create more opportunities for those who do well on the TJ test, but don't get in, to do research with GMU or other colleges -- creating partnerships with colleges within the base HSs for the many who missed out on TJ).

TJ is a meritocracy.

Leave it alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s get some more white kids in the level 4

The issue is not getting more white kids into AAP.