Anonymous wrote:Why does FCPS undervalue AAP and not was to provide sufficient resources to the most gifted and talented kids, vs the watered down experience that is the current AAP program (where everyone gets a trophy)?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:To meet equity and diversity objectives. If AAP standard is high, especially math and English, then it favors only one or at most two races.
And by equity and diversity objectives, PP means "to satisfy wealthy white parents who were upset that their children didn't get into the gifted and talented program".
25-30 years ago, when it was just 5% or so in the "GT" program, most parents didn't obsess like they do today about it. Some factors that might explain this:
1) Parents of non-GT kids didn't have to accept their kids being grouped with the "bottom 80%" as is perceived now. They were in the 95%, which seemed less negative.
2) Gen ed standards were much higher without so many resources spent on other programs.
3) The general SES of FCPS was higher, so there wasn't as much tension about the distribution of resources.
4) ESOL is a huge resource suck today, and average native English speakers lose out in that zero sum game.
5) FCPS' DEI push alienated many MC and UMC parents, and not all of them can afford private schools. AAP is a compromise until honors, AP are available.
25-30 years ago, TJ didn’t exist or was brand new. That’s what changed it.
Another factor that "may" have contributed is the influx of Asian immigrants to the area, whose parents put a high value on education, especially math/science/technology.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:To meet equity and diversity objectives. If AAP standard is high, especially math and English, then it favors only one or at most two races.
And by equity and diversity objectives, PP means "to satisfy wealthy white parents who were upset that their children didn't get into the gifted and talented program".
25-30 years ago, when it was just 5% or so in the "GT" program, most parents didn't obsess like they do today about it. Some factors that might explain this:
1) Parents of non-GT kids didn't have to accept their kids being grouped with the "bottom 80%" as is perceived now. They were in the 95%, which seemed less negative.
2) Gen ed standards were much higher without so many resources spent on other programs.
3) The general SES of FCPS was higher, so there wasn't as much tension about the distribution of resources.
4) ESOL is a huge resource suck today, and average native English speakers lose out in that zero sum game.
5) FCPS' DEI push alienated many MC and UMC parents, and not all of them can afford private schools. AAP is a compromise until honors, AP are available.
25-30 years ago, TJ didn’t exist or was brand new. That’s what changed it.
TJ as a magnet science/technology school started in 1985, and the other students were soon merged into the student body at Annandale HS. It was competitive from the beginning, though not to the degree it is now.
Another factor that "may" have contributed is the influx of Asian immigrants to the area, whose parents put a high value on education, especially math/science/technology.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:To meet equity and diversity objectives. If AAP standard is high, especially math and English, then it favors only one or at most two races.
And by equity and diversity objectives, PP means "to satisfy wealthy white parents who were upset that their children didn't get into the gifted and talented program".
25-30 years ago, when it was just 5% or so in the "GT" program, most parents didn't obsess like they do today about it. Some factors that might explain this:
1) Parents of non-GT kids didn't have to accept their kids being grouped with the "bottom 80%" as is perceived now. They were in the 95%, which seemed less negative.
2) Gen ed standards were much higher without so many resources spent on other programs.
3) The general SES of FCPS was higher, so there wasn't as much tension about the distribution of resources.
4) ESOL is a huge resource suck today, and average native English speakers lose out in that zero sum game.
5) FCPS' DEI push alienated many MC and UMC parents, and not all of them can afford private schools. AAP is a compromise until honors, AP are available.
25-30 years ago, TJ didn’t exist or was brand new. That’s what changed it.
Anonymous wrote:No this is not about TJ 🙄. That is just one school and not that many kids attend.
It is these things:
2) Gen ed standards were much higher without so many resources spent on other programs.
3) The general SES of FCPS was higher, so there wasn't as much tension about the distribution of resources.
4) ESOL is a huge resource suck today, and average native English speakers lose out in that zero sum game.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:To meet equity and diversity objectives. If AAP standard is high, especially math and English, then it favors only one or at most two races.
And by equity and diversity objectives, PP means "to satisfy wealthy white parents who were upset that their children didn't get into the gifted and talented program".
25-30 years ago, when it was just 5% or so in the "GT" program, most parents didn't obsess like they do today about it. Some factors that might explain this:
1) Parents of non-GT kids didn't have to accept their kids being grouped with the "bottom 80%" as is perceived now. They were in the 95%, which seemed less negative.
2) Gen ed standards were much higher without so many resources spent on other programs.
3) The general SES of FCPS was higher, so there wasn't as much tension about the distribution of resources.
4) ESOL is a huge resource suck today, and average native English speakers lose out in that zero sum game.
5) FCPS' DEI push alienated many MC and UMC parents, and not all of them can afford private schools. AAP is a compromise until honors, AP are available.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:To meet equity and diversity objectives. If AAP standard is high, especially math and English, then it favors only one or at most two races.
And by equity and diversity objectives, PP means "to satisfy wealthy white parents who were upset that their children didn't get into the gifted and talented program".
25-30 years ago, when it was just 5% or so in the "GT" program, most parents didn't obsess like they do today about it. Some factors that might explain this:
1) Parents of non-GT kids didn't have to accept their kids being grouped with the "bottom 80%" as is perceived now. They were in the 95%, which seemed less negative.
2) Gen ed standards were much higher without so many resources spent on other programs.
3) The general SES of FCPS was higher, so there wasn't as much tension about the distribution of resources.
4) ESOL is a huge resource suck today, and average native English speakers lose out in that zero sum game.
5) FCPS' DEI push alienated many MC and UMC parents, and not all of them can afford private schools. AAP is a compromise until honors, AP are available.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:To meet equity and diversity objectives. If AAP standard is high, especially math and English, then it favors only one or at most two races.
And by equity and diversity objectives, PP means "to satisfy wealthy white parents who were upset that their children didn't get into the gifted and talented program".
Anonymous wrote:To meet equity and diversity objectives. If AAP standard is high, especially math and English, then it favors only one or at most two races.
Anonymous wrote:Why does FCPS undervalue AAP and not was to provide sufficient resources to the most gifted and talented kids, vs the watered down experience that is the current AAP program (where everyone gets a trophy)?