Reply to Science says: never get rid of AAP

Forum Index » Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)

Reply to "Science says: never get rid of AAP"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Here is one of the main findings in the AAP equity report
https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BPLQKV69B096/$file/FCPS%20final%20report%2005.05.20.pdf

[quote=AAP equity report]In the end, we found no evidence of racial / ethnic bias against African American or Hispanic
students in the Level IV selection process (either at the screening or eligibility phases). [b]In fact, Tables
7 and 8 shows that African American and Hispanic students had far greater odds of being screened
(Table 7) or found eligible (Table 8) for Level IV services than their similar-scoring (on GBRS, NNAT,
and CogAT) European American peers[/b]. Asian American students also had greater odds of being
screened for or found eligible for Level IV services than their similar-scoring, European American
peers. We also found no evidence of gender bias at the screening or Level IV eligibility phases.
27
[b]This means that although African American and Hispanic students are still disproportionally
underrepresented in Level IV services, they are actually being placed in Level IV services at higher
rates than would be expected given their NNAT, CogAT, and GBRS scores. African American students
with similar scores as their European American peers were identified for Level IV services at a rate of
5.7 to 1.[/b] Similarly, while Asian American students are disproportionally overrepresented in Level IV
services compared to their enrollment in the overall FCPS population, this rate is close to what
should be expected given their test scores. Asian American students with similar scores as their
European American peers were identified for Level IV services at a rate of 1.1 to 1 - almost identical.
When we look at the NNAT alone, we still see no evidence of a bias against African American or
Hispanic students. The NNAT is described by the publisher as a "culture neutral" test of general
ability. When we control for NNAT scores, African American students were still found eligible for
Level IV services at a rate of 1.5 to 1 - less than when we control for all available data, but still no
evidence of any negative bias against African American students.
In short, this suggests that much of what FCPS has been doing to increase the diversity of Level IV
services has been working.[b] If Level IV services were based on CogAT, NNAT, and GBRS scores alone,
far fewer African American and Hispanic students would be identified as Level IV eligible than they
are today. [/b]Why is there such a disparity? It is likely due to larger inequality and the achievement
gaps shown in Table 6. Nationally, students enter school with different levels of content mastery
and readiness. These achievement gaps across groups exist on nearly every test and when any of
those tests are used for program admission, these disproportional enrollment figures should be
expected. [b]Currently, it appears that FCPS is putting forth significant effort to increase the Level IV
eligibility rate of African American and Hispanic student, but the achievement gaps between groups
is so large that this effort is still not enough to make the Level IV population reflective of the overall
student population. [/b]
[/quote]

There is not some epidemic of White and Asian parents gaming the system.  FCPS is making a heroic effort to identify pretty much any URM who seems capable of handling AAP.  [/quote]

I am aware that the report finds that as well. The question was on how people are gaming the system. I was laying out what the report points to.

My impression is that the majority of kids with weaker scores are at different schools then the ones where parents are more likely to refer and appeal. I am sure that there are anecdotes from every school but I would suspect that the lower scoring URMs that are being admitted are more likely located at Title 1 schools and that the higher scoring White and Asian kids not being admitted are at higher SES schools. I don't believe the report actually tracks that piece of the puzzle. But the different in-pool test scores from last year pointed to higher base scores for in-pool from MC and UMC ES. There were fewer posts about below 132 scores being in-pool, probably because those are at lower SES schools that don't tend to post at DCUM.

Teacher referrals are higher at Title 1 and near Title 1 schools then at MC and UMC schools because Teachers know that parents are less likely to refer at those schools.

So yes, there is a move to include more URM kids in AAP but that does not mean that the kids with 118 scores are at schools where the in-pool scores last year were over 140. [/quote]

Gaming the system = using your knowledge and privilege to get a kid admitted who doesn't belong in AAP.  Appealing and reapplying are highly unlikely to result in a child who doesn't belong in AAP getting admitted.  We've seen countless times on dcum that kids with even very high test scores,  GBRS, and achievement levels are still getting rejected on appeal.  Kids who get accepted when reapplying in 3rd-6th do so because the classroom teacher feels that the kid is outside of the scope of what they can differentiate for in their classroom.  Are you suggesting that the few people who have a sufficiently compelling case to get their children admitted in appeals or the kids that the 3rd-6th grade teachers strongly feel belong in AAP should no longer be admitted to AAP?

The main way affluent people are "gaming the system" is that they're enriching their children enough that the children are objectively advanced.  Are you suggesting that kids who are objectively a grade level ahead in every single subject should not be placed in an environment teaching at the appropriate level?

Kids with 118 scores and on-grade level reading group were getting accepted at the same Title I school where my kid with a 130 CogAT, 15 GBRS, and above grade level in all subjects was rejected.  Even if you want to make the argument that the kids with 118 scores who are accepted are at different schools than the 140 score children who are rejected, how on earth does rejecting high scoring kids at different schools help anyone?  Unlike TJ, AAP is not a zero sum game.  There is no reason at all to prevent highly capable kids from accessing an advanced curriculum.  The only possible reason to reject affluent white and Asian kids with high test scores, high GBRS, and above grade level in all subjects is to improve the optics.  [/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