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]
There is really no data here to support that parent referrals or appeal get in kids who shouldn’t be there. Maybe that is worth looking into but this data doesn’t delve into that enough to draw any conclusions. And really, I see no reason a kid who gets a legitimate high WISC should not be in, it’s a better measure than NNAT or COGAT. I doubt those are the kids “watering down” AAP.[/quote]
It depends on how you define whether a kid "shouldn't be there."  Lots of parent referrals are bright average, privileged kids who are decent students.  They haven't taken a WISC, or if they did, the kid had an IQ around 115-120.  Should those kids be in AAP?

I'm not at all concerned about eliminating parent referrals, since they also mentioned lowering the pool threshold.  I bet a lot of the parent referrals with high WISCs would have been in-pool if the pool were 125 and not 132.   I am concerned with not allowing WISC or not using that as a way to allow (rare) parent referrals.  To me, a 130+ WISC means the kid is legitimately gifted and should be automatically in.  [/quote]

I’m the PP quoted and don’t necessarily have my own definition of kids who “shouldn’t be there” but see it mentioned by others, I think from the idea pushy parents get in children some think don’t belong which if that happens is a fault of the process more so than the parents. Or if it means hothoused, prepped kids...getting rid of referrals or appeals doesn’t impact that either. But I tend to think you may be right about lowering in-pool. For reference I have one of those over 130 WISC kids (GMU WISC so IMO legit) who was just barely NOT in pool.[/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