Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Unlikely. Asian immigration into the area started around the fall of Saigon.

Ugh, Asian-Americans are not a monolith or homogenous group. There has been a much heavier influx of highly-educated H-1B visa immigrants to NoVa in recent decades, with the significant majority coming from India, a lesser number from China, and then a smattering of different Asian countries. These families have both the education and resources available to push harder for appealing AAP admissions, etc. on average than did the immigrants who would have come around the fall of Saigon.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Unlikely. Asian immigration into the area started around the fall of Saigon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this is a DEI thing at all. FCPS is trying to keep the largest number of parents happy. There are a lot more parents of kids with a 120-130 IQ who think their kids are super special and need to be in a gifted program than there are parents of kids who truly cannot have their needs met in a regular classroom.

"Lot of parents" dont care about AAP and Gen Ed difference but FCPS board members targets them as a voting bloc and highlight their relatively lower presence in AAP as them being excluded due to higher merit standards. So lowering standards is framed as necessary to achieve inclusion of that large voting bloc.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this is a DEI thing at all. FCPS is trying to keep the largest number of parents happy. There are a lot more parents of kids with a 120-130 IQ who think their kids are super special and need to be in a gifted program than there are parents of kids who truly cannot have their needs met in a regular classroom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NYC and Seattle school systems have eliminated their AAP / GT programs.

FCPS is following their lead because of racial equity.

If AAP/GT continue to be watered down, won’t that widen the achievement gap as advanced students increasingly turn to outside academic enrichment while gen ed students focus on non-academic interests?

I’m the PP.

As far as I can discern, NYC and Seattle know it’s difficult to raise the standardized test scores of the lowest-performing students.

But those cities (along with FCPS) are desperate to “narrow the racial achievement gap” between the lowest performing students (who tend to be BIPOC) and the highest performing students (who tend to be Asian).

It’s easier to take away the opportunities from the highest performing students. Without advanced opportunities, the top performers stop being so advanced, and are closer to the lowest performing. The gap is effectively narrowed.

Progressives view this as “equity achieved” and DEI furthered.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NYC and Seattle school systems have eliminated their AAP / GT programs.

FCPS is following their lead because of racial equity.

If AAP/GT continue to be watered down, won’t that widen the achievement gap as advanced students increasingly turn to outside academic enrichment while gen ed students focus on non-academic interests?

Anonymous wrote:NYC and Seattle school systems have eliminated their AAP / GT programs.

FCPS is following their lead because of racial equity.