Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asians are over represented and Hispanics are under represented. Whites and blacks are roughly proportional to school age population.

"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)"

BULLSHIT

Do we have the opportunity to comment?

Anonymous wrote:Asians are over represented and Hispanics are under represented. Whites and blacks are roughly proportional to school age population.

"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)"

A summary of the reports findings and conclusions starts on page 25. There are 25 points made.

The number of referrals is insane. There were 1409 in pool candidates and 2165 referrals for 2018-2019.

The socio-economic bias that is discussed in pretty much every thread is a huge part of the report. From wealthier parents knowing more about the program and application process, to being able to provide a more solid foundation through enrichment, to extra curricular activities padding packets with honors, awards, and letters of recommendation, to being able to pay for test scores.

Thanks for the summary.

There was a lot of double speak. Like, they said it was good that FCPS used multiple factors and not just test scores, but then went on to say that GBRS is not a psychometrically vetted measure and thus is very arbitrary. Since it is the primary measure for finding kids eligible, this is problematic.

They showed that white people take full advantage of parent referrals.

When adjusted for test scores, an AA kid is more than 5 times more likely to be selected than a white or Asian kid with the same stats.

While URMs are still underrepresented, their representation is increasing.

People strongly supported front end services like a robust Young Scholars program to address the achievement gap

The people who created the report want to get rid of NNAT since it doesn't give them any info not already provided by CogAT NV, but it still costs a lot.

They wanted a real, vetted measure used in place of GBRS.

They want to get rid of parent referrals, parental submission of materials into the packet, and substantially reduce appeals, but they also want the in-pool benchmark reduced. The reason for this is that URMs and lower income kids are less likely to take advantage of parent referrals, parent supplied packet materials, and appeals.

They want stronger LI, LII, and LIII

They want full time AARTs at every school, and maybe extra AART support at Title I schools. They found part time AARTs pretty useless.

They also suggested using school-wide norms rather than county wide ones. Like, the top whatever percent of kids in each school would be in AAP.

The lowest kids getting accepted had CogAT scores around 90, which is well below average. The mean scores were around a 119 CogAT V, a 126 Q, and a 124 NV. Mean NNAT was lower than that, I think.

AAP teachers have complained that the range of learners is too broad, and that they will have kids who are below grade level in the same class as kids who get perfect scores on CogAT.

The goals of AAP are unclear on a county wide level.

That's the rough summary.

They should start with getting rid of middle school centers, which they‘ve been doing in a stealth manner by expanding the number of “centers” that now just serve students within the base boundaries. More caution might be needed at the ES level.

I really appreciate the center model and don't think that LLIV is a good replacement or even a good idea at all.

For years, there have been loud voices pushing to expand LLIV and get rid of centers. They haven't succeeded yet. I hope they continue not to succeed.

Shrinking the numbers of admitted students would make centers more viable, IMO, rather than less.

There have been a few posts on here where people are upset that there's no LLIV at their base schools. I bet there's a strong overlap with no LLIV and principals who responded and said they don't see value in AAP. That really sucks for those schools.

Thanks for posting - can anyone give a summary if they read it. I’m finding it kind of confusing. I didn’t get very far.

That was an interesting report: The mean NNAT and Cogat scores, the numbers of admitted students each year (16% of 2nd graders were admitted last year). The ratio between in pool and referred in admitted students. The recommendations, including getting rid of the NNAT, revising the GBRS and referral process, and expanding LLIV.

Overall, it was a strange mishmash of supporting the program and approval of the expansion of equity while recommending measures that would shrink the program and seeming to recommend LLIV everywhere and no centers.

Anonymous wrote:GBRS is the most important factor. Then CogAT Q. Median CogAT V score for admitted kids is around 119.

Is that really true? My kid score a 140 verbal on the COGAT. She was in pool and we procured a WISC in advance --134 FSIQ and submitted everything on the front end and she was admitted the first round.

What we are concerned about is diversity because we are black. But I am heartened that our center school is massive more diverse than our base (which has been great but there's very little diversity).

GBRS is the most important factor. Then CogAT Q. Median CogAT V score for admitted kids is around 119.

Asians are over represented and Hispanics are under represented. Whites and blacks are roughly proportional to school age population.

is here
https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BPD4M50C2B1F/$file/FCPS%20final%20report%2005.05.20.pdf