Reply to AAP Equity report

Forum Index » Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)

Reply to "AAP Equity report"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Why is this called an "Equity" report. Gifted Education is based on the assumption that everyone is not of equal intelligence, equal ability. [/quote]

Because it is assumed that kids of all races are gifted but some are undiscovered.[/quote]

Then why do they have to lower standards for some particular races in order to call them gifted or advanced?[/quote]

The report stated that [b]all races had similar means and ranges[/b] for test scores. There was no recommendation to change that.[/quote]
I don't see your repeated claim about this is true. Using NNAT scores as the example:

Mean scores for all students: Asian=113.6, White=107.5, Black=97.6
Mean scores for Level 4 eligibles: Asian=129, White=118, Black=111
Max scores for Level 4 eligibles: Asian=160, White=160, Black=142

I don't think these can be called "similar".

You forgot to put in the MINIMUM scores for all Level 4 eligible students:
WHITE = 70 (this is the 2nd percentile rank!!!!) , Asian = 93, Black = 85
[/quote][/quote]

You forgot to put in the MINIMUM scores for all Level 4 eligible students:
[b]WHITE = 70 (this is the 2nd percentile rank!!!!) , Asian = 93, Black = 85[/quote][/b]

Many of these likely had WISC or other test that was high.  You all have way too much trust that this number from a single administration of a group test tells you much.[/quote]

Why is it when a score from a white student is low, it is discounted, but not if a score from an URM is low? Outside testing like the WISC should NOT be allowed.  It rigs the system in favor of affluent households. Then add in GRBS which the report flat out states is biased. 
The largest group of students who are being missed are kids on FARM. I think the report says only 6% qualified. I think the district as a whole is almost 30% FARMS. [/quote]

I have two 2E kids so I’m going to disagree with you on not allowing the WISC.

That said you do have a point I think, that even when they try to expand it to URMs, it’s the middle to upper middle class who mainly benefit as opposed to FARMs. They should probably look into that. It’s a real issue at TJ. [/quote]

This is another huge problem. How is it that 21% of students in AAP have 504 plans that entitle them to accommodations like extra time when in the district only 1% have 504 plans? Who qualifies for 504 plans is ridiculous. 89% are not socially disadvantaged. Of students who have 504 plans 79% are white and 17% are Hispanic. That adds up to 96%- meaning that Blacks and Asians are completely underrepresented. If an affluent white child tests average on the COGAT they must have a disability. Poor kids get average and it is assumed that is their potential.

A report on special education/504 states:
Gifted Status 
Overall, 19.1% of all students at APS are identified as Gifted. Gifted students are underrepresented in the areas of IEPs (6%) and IATs (8%). Conversely, they are somewhat overrepresented in the area of Section 504 (25%).
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/APS-Sped-Final-Report-1.18-1.pdf[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics