Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.harlan.k12.ky.us/pdf/Gifted&TalentedForms/HopeScaleDirections.pdf
No joke, HOPE is racist! Teachers are being forced to assess students based on their race:

"For example, when rating your students, try to compare those from low-income families to other children from low-income families, children from African-American families to other children from African-American families, (Asian Americans children to other Asian American children, White children to other White children), etc."

What exactly does this mean?
Is it like this: school committee puts students in different groups like
Black students: Williams, Johnson, Smith, Jones,...
Indian American student: Deepak, Amir, Krishna.....
East asian orgin: Chen, Zhang, Park, Cui,
Latino group: lopez, Perez, Garcia....
Whit: Smith, Hunter,.....
Then create and apply different standards for each group?
This sounds a lot of work. Is this the reason that the process takes so long?

Yes, thanks for your understanding why it takes so long.
Specifically, teachers are required to assign a comparative rating. Let's say a latino 3rd grade child is observed to perform above grade double digit division. So, for the "7. Exhibits intellectual intensity" item they would be receiving a "Always" rating. But later in the week, another latino kid in that same class was observed to be asking an even higher math level related question, say decimal division. Now the teacher is required to assign Always to this second child, and change first student's rating to Sometimes.

“To what degree does this student exhibit the behavior as compared to other children of similar age, background, experience, culture, and/or environment?”

This is absolutely false. We were taught no such thing. Doesn’t come in to it AT ALL. I have several friends who did central selection committee as well. There is NO demographic data there. NONE.

Seconding this. That sounds like the training I went through. This thread is the first time I've seen the "manual" others are linking.

This deserves a reiteration. If student is:

Academically advanced -> apply to AAP
Gifted and Academically advanced -> apply to AAP
Gifted but not academically advanced -> AAP may not be the right choice

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You want to switch to test only? Get rid of the centers. One LIV class for every 3 regular class in the school. Schools that have more classes will have multiple LIV classes. The top 25% of the kids for each school are in the LIV classroom. If there is an issue at specific schools regarding the composition of the class, it can be addressed locally through Principal Placement.

Once you add in Centers and moving kids to different schools and the like, you change the nature of what is being offered and you add in a different level of complexity because now the program as a whole has to reflect the entire County and not the school.

Pretty sure test only wouldn't meet state standards for gifted identification. Multiple factors have to be considered. The gifted program rules aren't entirely made up by FCPS.

AAP is not a gifted program by definition. AAP is meant for advanced academic learners. Few gifted students who are interested in advanced academics can apply to AAP, and they are required to go through the normal application process like anyone else. The word "gifted" doesn't appear at all in FCPS AAP philosophy statement:

https://www.fcps.edu/academics/academic-overview/advanced-academic-programs

This is correct. Previously, parents misunderstood the purpose of AAP to be only for gifted, since it was mention deep down somewhere. To eliminate that misunderstanding, FCPS removed the word "gifted" many years ago from the AAP philosophy statement:

"Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) believes in developing the strengths and talents of all students. Every student needs to be challenged and engaged in exciting learning experiences.

FCPS policies and procedures are grounded in equity and inclusion. Our commitment to providing rigor to all students is part of the FCPS strategic plan. AAP offers a continuum of advanced academic services to meet a broad range of student needs. We take a holistic approach that uses a variety of assessments to determine the level of service to match the child’s current needs.

With the FCPS talent development model, all students in FCPS will receive:

Critical and creative thinking lessons.
Access to AAP curriculum and strategies.

Some students need a differentiated curriculum to address their cognitive and social-emotional needs. These students receive additional AAP services based on:

Academic needs beyond peers at their grade level.
Strengths in language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies.
A need for increased depth, complexity, and pace of instruction.

Students’ advanced academic needs may change over time. The AAP continuum of services develops and builds on students’ current strengths and talents.
"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You want to switch to test only? Get rid of the centers. One LIV class for every 3 regular class in the school. Schools that have more classes will have multiple LIV classes. The top 25% of the kids for each school are in the LIV classroom. If there is an issue at specific schools regarding the composition of the class, it can be addressed locally through Principal Placement.

Once you add in Centers and moving kids to different schools and the like, you change the nature of what is being offered and you add in a different level of complexity because now the program as a whole has to reflect the entire County and not the school.

Pretty sure test only wouldn't meet state standards for gifted identification. Multiple factors have to be considered. The gifted program rules aren't entirely made up by FCPS.

AAP is not a gifted program by definition. AAP is meant for advanced academic learners. Few gifted students who are interested in advanced academics can apply to AAP, and they are required to go through the normal application process like anyone else. The word "gifted" doesn't appear at all in FCPS AAP philosophy statement:

https://www.fcps.edu/academics/academic-overview/advanced-academic-programs

AAP is the way that FCPS implements the state mandate for a gifted program. It is a GT program.iy also includes other kids. That's a feature, not a bug. It was designed that way.

FCPS uses a portion of AAP to offer its gifted services. Not all gifted students are enrolled into AAP. Only advanced academic kids, including a very small portion of who are identified as gifted, can apply and get admitted to AAP. Majority of AAP students are advanced in academics, but not gifted, and care less about gifted services.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You want to switch to test only? Get rid of the centers. One LIV class for every 3 regular class in the school. Schools that have more classes will have multiple LIV classes. The top 25% of the kids for each school are in the LIV classroom. If there is an issue at specific schools regarding the composition of the class, it can be addressed locally through Principal Placement.

Once you add in Centers and moving kids to different schools and the like, you change the nature of what is being offered and you add in a different level of complexity because now the program as a whole has to reflect the entire County and not the school.

Pretty sure test only wouldn't meet state standards for gifted identification. Multiple factors have to be considered. The gifted program rules aren't entirely made up by FCPS.

I am pretty certain that APS do not run their ES programs the way FCPS does. APS essentialy uses test scores and parent requests to cluster kids identified as gifted into groups. There are no pull outs and the reports from APS parents and Teachers is that there is little differentiation. That tells me that there is no state mandate on how to run a program for the gifted and talented kids or how to select kids for the gifted and talented programs that schools run.

FCPS LIV program is different and is run the way FCPS wants to run it, which is why they keep tweaking how they except kids into it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You want to switch to test only? Get rid of the centers. One LIV class for every 3 regular class in the school. Schools that have more classes will have multiple LIV classes. The top 25% of the kids for each school are in the LIV classroom. If there is an issue at specific schools regarding the composition of the class, it can be addressed locally through Principal Placement.

Once you add in Centers and moving kids to different schools and the like, you change the nature of what is being offered and you add in a different level of complexity because now the program as a whole has to reflect the entire County and not the school.

Pretty sure test only wouldn't meet state standards for gifted identification. Multiple factors have to be considered. The gifted program rules aren't entirely made up by FCPS.

AAP is not a gifted program by definition. AAP is meant for advanced academic learners. Few gifted students who are interested in advanced academics can apply to AAP, and they are required to go through the normal application process like anyone else. The word "gifted" doesn't appear at all in FCPS AAP philosophy statement:

https://www.fcps.edu/academics/academic-overview/advanced-academic-programs

AAP is the way that FCPS implements the state mandate for a gifted program. It is a GT program.iy also includes other kids. That's a feature, not a bug. It was designed that way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You want to switch to test only? Get rid of the centers. One LIV class for every 3 regular class in the school. Schools that have more classes will have multiple LIV classes. The top 25% of the kids for each school are in the LIV classroom. If there is an issue at specific schools regarding the composition of the class, it can be addressed locally through Principal Placement.

Once you add in Centers and moving kids to different schools and the like, you change the nature of what is being offered and you add in a different level of complexity because now the program as a whole has to reflect the entire County and not the school.

Pretty sure test only wouldn't meet state standards for gifted identification. Multiple factors have to be considered. The gifted program rules aren't entirely made up by FCPS.

AAP is not a gifted program by definition. AAP is meant for advanced academic learners. Few gifted students who are interested in advanced academics can apply to AAP, and they are required to go through the normal application process like anyone else. The word "gifted" doesn't appear at all in FCPS AAP philosophy statement:

https://www.fcps.edu/academics/academic-overview/advanced-academic-programs

Out of curiosity, when did teachers receive this training? Trying to figure out if our HOPE form was filled out before or after training.

Anonymous wrote:You want to switch to test only? Get rid of the centers. One LIV class for every 3 regular class in the school. Schools that have more classes will have multiple LIV classes. The top 25% of the kids for each school are in the LIV classroom. If there is an issue at specific schools regarding the composition of the class, it can be addressed locally through Principal Placement.

Once you add in Centers and moving kids to different schools and the like, you change the nature of what is being offered and you add in a different level of complexity because now the program as a whole has to reflect the entire County and not the school.

Pretty sure test only wouldn't meet state standards for gifted identification. Multiple factors have to be considered. The gifted program rules aren't entirely made up by FCPS.

You want to switch to test only? Get rid of the centers. One LIV class for every 3 regular class in the school. Schools that have more classes will have multiple LIV classes. The top 25% of the kids for each school are in the LIV classroom. If there is an issue at specific schools regarding the composition of the class, it can be addressed locally through Principal Placement.

Once you add in Centers and moving kids to different schools and the like, you change the nature of what is being offered and you add in a different level of complexity because now the program as a whole has to reflect the entire County and not the school.

HOPE aims for equitable identification. Going solely by objective test scores has not been resulting in ideal equity composition. HOPE is our new hope for achieving equity. It's likely high scorers may not get identified by HOPE but then that's why we have appeal process.

^^100%!!!

My kid is 98-99 percentile on all the measures you mentioned but HOPE is mediocre.

Hoping for the best today/tomorrow.

Anonymous wrote:DP (really): According to the teacher posters, FCPS is not using HOPE the way it was intended (even though FCPS is all about equity these days). I believe them because dividing kids into these stratified "culture" and "environment" groups is beyond the scope of what a classroom teacher can be expected to know. In that case, why is FCPS using HOPE at all since it is intended to look at different groups?

I feel for the poster whose kid got "NEVER" interacts effectively with adults/older kids. I wouldn't like that in my kid's file. When I read the instructions on the form, it is clearly based on what the teacher observes, so maybe it just didn't come up in the classroom. In many cases, the only adult the teacher will observe the kids interacting with IS the teacher himself/herself. Which is why I think the teacher input should be eliminated or limited to academic measures, not social stuff that may say as much about the teacher as the student.

The kids are testing so much, so often, that should be enough. NNAT, CogAT, iReady (2-3 times a year), VGA, DSA, etc. If they don't qualify based on the objective measures, they are going to require a lot more hand holding in AAP than should be necessary for well qualified kids. Let them catch up and take honors or AP classes later when applicable. I think that's fairer to all.

I would imagine that most other school systems are using HOPE to boost kids into the gifted program who don't otherwise have the scores, but not to keep kids out who do have the scores. That seems like the most appropriate way to handle teacher ratings for gifted programs. If the kid is 95th percentile+ on most of NNAT, CogAT, iReady, etc., there's no reason to keep a kid like that out of AAP. Yes, the kid might be prepped, but they're still clearly able to perform at an advanced level. There is entirely too much subjectivity in the HOPE for it to be appropriate as the main admissions factor.

DP (really): According to the teacher posters, FCPS is not using HOPE the way it was intended (even though FCPS is all about equity these days). I believe them because dividing kids into these stratified "culture" and "environment" groups is beyond the scope of what a classroom teacher can be expected to know. In that case, why is FCPS using HOPE at all since it is intended to look at different groups?

I feel for the poster whose kid got "NEVER" interacts effectively with adults/older kids. I wouldn't like that in my kid's file. When I read the instructions on the form, it is clearly based on what the teacher observes, so maybe it just didn't come up in the classroom. In many cases, the only adult the teacher will observe the kids interacting with IS the teacher himself/herself. Which is why I think the teacher input should be eliminated or limited to academic measures, not social stuff that may say as much about the teacher as the student.

The kids are testing so much, so often, that should be enough. NNAT, CogAT, iReady (2-3 times a year), VGA, DSA, etc. If they don't qualify based on the objective measures, they are going to require a lot more hand holding in AAP than should be necessary for well qualified kids. Let them catch up and take honors or AP classes later when applicable. I think that's fairer to all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are a teacher that fills these HOPE worksheets, can you provide practical examples on what you noticed that caused you to assign a "Always" or "Almost Always" rating for one or more of these attributes:
(please provide practical examples what the student did in the classroom or said/asked the teacher )
Academic:
======
1) Performs or shows potential for performing at remarkably high levels.
6) Is eager to explore new concepts.
7) Exhibits intellectual intensity.
9) Uses alternative approaches or processes.
10) Thinks "outside the box.”
11) Has intense interests.

Social:
=====
2) Is sensitive to larger or deeper issues of human concern.
3) Is self-aware.
4) Shows compassion for others.
5) Is a leader within their group of peers.
8) Effectively interacts with adults or older students.

https://davis.agendaonline.net/public/Meeting/Attachments/DisplayAttachment.aspx?AttachmentID=238383&IsArchive=0

Items 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 are Academic. Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 are Social. Academic subscore and Social subscore are compiled by student group - based on ethnicity, income group, etc.? Students are not compared as whole but within the subgroup they belong to? Is this how it works?
Is there a link to the entire HOPE administration manual?

Page 25 of the official HOPE manual requires teacher to rate students "as compared to other children similar in ... culture". Page 26 further elaborates "compare ... children from specific cultural groups to other children from the same cultural group" How is culture decided? is it a legally safer synonym for race/ethinicity, the only official classification on student record?

Multiple posters have told you that this is not how FCPS is using the HOPE form. Knock it off.

We get it you are brainwashed equity activist. But why lie and reply to your own messages pretending to be multiple posters?