Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a recent work-session the FCPS Board discussed revisions to the Strategic Plan to include:

The expansion of AAP Local Level IV to all non-center schools

The expansion of the Young Scholars Program to all schools

Setting targets that each measured demographic subgroup (Asian, Black, Hispanic, White, Economically Disadvantaged, English Language Learners, and Students with Disabilities) would be at or above 25% participation in AAP by 2022-24 and would be at equal percentages of participation by 2028-2030.

This could mean they could add additional local level IV classrooms in schools with high poverty or URM and place all the high performing students in them. Students don't have to be found AAP eligible in order to be placed in a local level IV classroom.

NP. This is how I read it. My guess is they'll eventually try to do away with centers, which will please people whose property values/ school rankings go down when the bulk of AAP kids go to a center in a different neighborhood, and also keep some schools from becoming Title I.

Anonymous wrote:How about making AAP actually advanced?

It is because there are a lot of low performers in FCPS.

Anonymous wrote:In a recent work-session the FCPS Board discussed revisions to the Strategic Plan to include:

The expansion of AAP Local Level IV to all non-center schools

The expansion of the Young Scholars Program to all schools

Setting targets that each measured demographic subgroup (Asian, Black, Hispanic, White, Economically Disadvantaged, English Language Learners, and Students with Disabilities) would be at or above 25% participation in AAP by 2022-24 and would be at equal percentages of participation by 2028-2030.

This could mean they could add additional local level IV classrooms in schools with high poverty or URM and place all the high performing students in them. Students don't have to be found AAP eligible in order to be placed in a local level IV classroom.

Anonymous wrote:If they're worried about underrepresentation of certain groups, then it would make much more sense to expand Young Scholars. If kids in those groups have access to a strong Young Scholars program from K-2 and still don't have the scores, teacher recommendations, and work samples that indicate AAP placement, then it's not really helping these kids to cram them into AAP anyway.

Uh, yes. Did you read the OP?

If they're worried about underrepresentation of certain groups, then it would make much more sense to expand Young Scholars. If kids in those groups have access to a strong Young Scholars program from K-2 and still don't have the scores, teacher recommendations, and work samples that indicate AAP placement, then it's not really helping these kids to cram them into AAP anyway.

How about making AAP actually advanced?

Anonymous wrote:If I understand the AAP program, the kids selected for it are suppose to be the top 1% of kids in the county based on the NNAT, CogAT, GBRS, and work samples? If the number of kids who qualify are so skewed that one ethnicity/race has a larger proportion represented in that 1%, then there is an issue with the selection process. No race/ethnicity is smarter then another.

The larger issue is that the socio economic divide makes it harder for the 1% of kids whose parents are not as well off and educated to be able to compete with the 1% of kids whose parents are educated and/or well off. There is no easy answer to that problem but setting quotas is not going to deal with the issues.

The other problem is that kids parents prep their kids for tests that they should not be prepped for. And kids whose parents spend more time reading to them, doing workbooks with them, and the like have an advantage. Nevermnd the kids whose parents send them to prep centers to prepare for the test.

When it gets down to it, AAP should only include a little more then 1% of the student population, if you accept that because of a highly educated work force that lives in the area there are more people who are potentially in that top 1%, and not the increasingly large number of kids that it is accepting. If we are going to argue that the program should be larger, then drop the test score needed to the top 10%.

But you don’t deal with this issue by developing quotas.

Top 1% of the county?! Are you serious? Over 20% of the kids in Fairfax County are in Level IV. There are roughly 13,000 4th grade students in FCPS, and over 2700 of them are in Level IV AAP. http://151.188.217.200/fts_drupal_support/dashboard/totals/estotals18-19.html Since the program is so large, the demographics are really apparent. At my kids' center, it's obvious at a glance which classrooms are AAP and which ones are gen ed, based on how white or Asian the classroom is.

I'm so glad my kids are just about out of the AAP age. FCPS had a very strong program, full of best-practices and they are trying to chip away at it.

Rather than making AAP larger they should make it smaller and return it to be a gifted program. It's a shame that they cannot use an IQ test like they did long ago because of the expense; also a shame that some percentage of people prep their kids for the selection tests when they are not supposed to be studied for.

FCPS can simultaneously continue to strengthen Gen Ed instruction by continuing to offer all gifted ed trainings and resources to those teachers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I understand the AAP program, the kids selected for it are suppose to be the top 1% of kids in the county based on the NNAT, CogAT, GBRS, and work samples? If the number of kids who qualify are so skewed that one ethnicity/race has a larger proportion represented in that 1%, then there is an issue with the selection process. No race/ethnicity is smarter then another.

The larger issue is that the socio economic divide makes it harder for the 1% of kids whose parents are not as well off and educated to be able to compete with the 1% of kids whose parents are educated and/or well off. There is no easy answer to that problem but setting quotas is not going to deal with the issues.

The other problem is that kids parents prep their kids for tests that they should not be prepped for. And kids whose parents spend more time reading to them, doing workbooks with them, and the like have an advantage. Nevermnd the kids whose parents send them to prep centers to prepare for the test.

When it gets down to it, AAP should only include a little more then 1% of the student population, if you accept that because of a highly educated work force that lives in the area there are more people who are potentially in that top 1%, and not the increasingly large number of kids that it is accepting. If we are going to argue that the program should be larger, then drop the test score needed to the top 10%.

But you don’t deal with this issue by developing quotas.

The bolded statement is not correct.

Asians outscore every subgroup on all standardized tests by significant margins.

Well, some of them do. Some of them don't.

Anonymous wrote:If I understand the AAP program, the kids selected for it are suppose to be the top 1% of kids in the county based on the NNAT, CogAT, GBRS, and work samples? If the number of kids who qualify are so skewed that one ethnicity/race has a larger proportion represented in that 1%, then there is an issue with the selection process. No race/ethnicity is smarter then another.

The larger issue is that the socio economic divide makes it harder for the 1% of kids whose parents are not as well off and educated to be able to compete with the 1% of kids whose parents are educated and/or well off. There is no easy answer to that problem but setting quotas is not going to deal with the issues.

The other problem is that kids parents prep their kids for tests that they should not be prepped for. And kids whose parents spend more time reading to them, doing workbooks with them, and the like have an advantage. Nevermnd the kids whose parents send them to prep centers to prepare for the test.

When it gets down to it, AAP should only include a little more then 1% of the student population, if you accept that because of a highly educated work force that lives in the area there are more people who are potentially in that top 1%, and not the increasingly large number of kids that it is accepting. If we are going to argue that the program should be larger, then drop the test score needed to the top 10%.

But you don’t deal with this issue by developing quotas.

The bolded statement is not correct.

Asians outscore every subgroup on all standardized tests by significant margins.

If I understand the AAP program, the kids selected for it are suppose to be the top 1% of kids in the county based on the NNAT, CogAT, GBRS, and work samples? If the number of kids who qualify are so skewed that one ethnicity/race has a larger proportion represented in that 1%, then there is an issue with the selection process. No race/ethnicity is smarter then another.

The larger issue is that the socio economic divide makes it harder for the 1% of kids whose parents are not as well off and educated to be able to compete with the 1% of kids whose parents are educated and/or well off. There is no easy answer to that problem but setting quotas is not going to deal with the issues.

The other problem is that kids parents prep their kids for tests that they should not be prepped for. And kids whose parents spend more time reading to them, doing workbooks with them, and the like have an advantage. Nevermnd the kids whose parents send them to prep centers to prepare for the test.

When it gets down to it, AAP should only include a little more then 1% of the student population, if you accept that because of a highly educated work force that lives in the area there are more people who are potentially in that top 1%, and not the increasingly large number of kids that it is accepting. If we are going to argue that the program should be larger, then drop the test score needed to the top 10%.

But you don’t deal with this issue by developing quotas.

Anonymous wrote:In a recent work-session the FCPS Board discussed revisions to the Strategic Plan to include:

The expansion of AAP Local Level IV to all non-center schools

The expansion of the Young Scholars Program to all schools

Setting targets that each measured demographic subgroup (Asian, Black, Hispanic, White, Economically Disadvantaged, English Language Learners, and Students with Disabilities) would be at or above 25% participation in AAP by 2022-24 and would be at equal percentages of participation by 2028-2030.

I read (and heard) this differently.

The participation metrics now include all students receiving any type of level IV instruction, or anything from the level IV curriculum -- so the metrics no longer are representing only Level IV, eligible students.

FCPS gifted services are moving to become more like MCPS while MCPS is becoming more like FCPS.

There's no good way to offer gifted services

This will be shot down from the supreme court

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/02/660734399/harvard-discrimination-trial-is-ending-but-lawsuit-is-far-from-over

Anonymous wrote:One racial group should not be scoring better on gifted tests than others. That’s a problem that should be fixed.

They shouldn't but thats the breakdown in intelligence and support at home. Unless the school is prepared to invoke parental rights on children, clothe, bathe, tutor, feed and house them then it's a mute point.