Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The burden should not be placed on people who are perhaps lower SES, working multiple jobs, or don't speak English very well to attain appropriate educational placement for their kids. If the statistics show that a much larger percentage of Asian or white parents with kids scoring between 120 and 131 submit parent referrals than black or Hispanic parents with kids in the same score range, then the referral system needs to be fixed.
How? There are many information meetings with translation available. At some point personal responsibility needs to come into play.
Many times those meetings are at times that are hard for parents who work to attend. I am lucky that I have a job that is flexible enough that I can take off to attend meetings and the like but not every parent can do that. Or parents don’t have enough understand ing of the system to know why they should attend a meeting or why a program like AAP is important for their child.
Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of people would support that you need to have scores above a specific level and no appeals. Set it at what ever the 85% mark is for the region on the NNAT and the CogAT. Teacher evals for anyone who hit one score but not the other.
But I suspect that would cause people to freak out.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I thought quotas were unconstitutional?
It’s complicated.
With the caveat that I have not seen the FCPS exact phrasing— quotas are generally unconstitutional. But, in holistic admissions, like AAP, URM status as a “plus factor”— one consideration out of several— is okay. And targets or goals that might or might not be reached are fine. So, if FCPS is trying to put systems in place to help reach enrollment goals for URMs, it could be fine. Especially if the goals are aspirational, rather than actual quotas. “We hope that there will be enough qualified URMs” is different than “we will take unqualified URMs is we must to hit a certain number. It’s like Harvard aggressively recruiting URMs and giving URM status special weight. Fine, as long as being a URM is not the deciding factor.
But— a lot of this law is in the context of college admissions, where there a set number of seats. AAP is different, because every qualified kid is supposed to be admitted. Unlike Harvard, a URM getting admission does not take a seat from some other, possibly more qualified kid. Your UMC white kid will still be admitted, whether or not the YS model is used to identify additional URM kids. So, I would think FCPS would get additional flexibility.
No idea if what you say is accurate or not, but there’s no reason this couldn’t be applied to TJ admissions too. It’s time.
TJ has a limited number of seats.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The burden should not be placed on people who are perhaps lower SES, working multiple jobs, or don't speak English very well to attain appropriate educational placement for their kids. If the statistics show that a much larger percentage of Asian or white parents with kids scoring between 120 and 131 submit parent referrals than black or Hispanic parents with kids in the same score range, then the referral system needs to be fixed.
How? There are many information meetings with translation available. At some point personal responsibility needs to come into play.
If the vast majority of white and Asian parents refer kids who score in the 120s, then the school committee should automatically consider any kid who scores in the 120s. Or at least, they should do so for URMs or lower SES kids. Similarly, schools rarely submit school referrals for Level IV, but they have the right to do so. If schools were encouraged to refer any URMs who seem bright, have reasonably high test scores, but perhaps have parents who don't know the system, it could go a long way toward fixing the problem. After all, the main issue isn't that URMs are being rejected at high rates by the AAP selection committee. It's that parents aren't referring, so the selection committee isn't evaluating these children at all.
Likewise, if the majority of white and Asian kids are receiving some sort of CogAT prep, then the same should be provided for URMs through Young Scholars. Affluence and parental involvement are not supposed to influence who is found eligible for AAP.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I thought quotas were unconstitutional?
It’s complicated.
With the caveat that I have not seen the FCPS exact phrasing— quotas are generally unconstitutional. But, in holistic admissions, like AAP, URM status as a “plus factor”— one consideration out of several— is okay. And targets or goals that might or might not be reached are fine. So, if FCPS is trying to put systems in place to help reach enrollment goals for URMs, it could be fine. Especially if the goals are aspirational, rather than actual quotas. “We hope that there will be enough qualified URMs” is different than “we will take unqualified URMs is we must to hit a certain number. It’s like Harvard aggressively recruiting URMs and giving URM status special weight. Fine, as long as being a URM is not the deciding factor.
But— a lot of this law is in the context of college admissions, where there a set number of seats. AAP is different, because every qualified kid is supposed to be admitted. Unlike Harvard, a URM getting admission does not take a seat from some other, possibly more qualified kid. Your UMC white kid will still be admitted, whether or not the YS model is used to identify additional URM kids. So, I would think FCPS would get additional flexibility.
No idea if what you say is accurate or not, but there’s no reason this couldn’t be applied to TJ admissions too. It’s time.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I thought quotas were unconstitutional?
It’s complicated.
With the caveat that I have not seen the FCPS exact phrasing— quotas are generally unconstitutional. But, in holistic admissions, like AAP, URM status as a “plus factor”— one consideration out of several— is okay. And targets or goals that might or might not be reached are fine. So, if FCPS is trying to put systems in place to help reach enrollment goals for URMs, it could be fine. Especially if the goals are aspirational, rather than actual quotas. “We hope that there will be enough qualified URMs” is different than “we will take unqualified URMs is we must to hit a certain number. It’s like Harvard aggressively recruiting URMs and giving URM status special weight. Fine, as long as being a URM is not the deciding factor.
But— a lot of this law is in the context of college admissions, where there a set number of seats. AAP is different, because every qualified kid is supposed to be admitted. Unlike Harvard, a URM getting admission does not take a seat from some other, possibly more qualified kid. Your UMC white kid will still be admitted, whether or not the YS model is used to identify additional URM kids. So, I would think FCPS would get additional flexibility.
Anonymous wrote:Are they planning to lump all Asians together, or will they separate by group? There already seem to be huge differences in AAP representation based on country of origin for Asians, such that some Asian ethnicities are effectively URMs, while others are very over-represented.
Also, when they try to look at SES-based representation, are they planning to just have it be FARMS vs. not-FARMS, or will there be a little more granularity? People who are not poor enough to be FARMS, but are not much above that threshold are probably more demographically similar to FARMS kids than they are to high SES kids.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The burden should not be placed on people who are perhaps lower SES, working multiple jobs, or don't speak English very well to attain appropriate educational placement for their kids. If the statistics show that a much larger percentage of Asian or white parents with kids scoring between 120 and 131 submit parent referrals than black or Hispanic parents with kids in the same score range, then the referral system needs to be fixed.
How? There are many information meetings with translation available. At some point personal responsibility needs to come into play.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I've seen the board docs and they show the current AAP participation rates for 4 categories: Asian 40%, White 30%, and Black and Hispanic, as I think 15% each. If you want the groups to be even, then the first two groups participation rates would have to down unless they expanded the local level 4 or other levels to include more URMs.
It makes sense to me since a lot of the testing and the process selecting kids for the program is biased against blacks.
Haha yeah math is bias
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The burden should not be placed on people who are perhaps lower SES, working multiple jobs, or don't speak English very well to attain appropriate educational placement for their kids. If the statistics show that a much larger percentage of Asian or white parents with kids scoring between 120 and 131 submit parent referrals than black or Hispanic parents with kids in the same score range, then the referral system needs to be fixed.
How? There are many information meetings with translation available. At some point personal responsibility needs to come into play.
Anonymous wrote:The burden should not be placed on people who are perhaps lower SES, working multiple jobs, or don't speak English very well to attain appropriate educational placement for their kids. If the statistics show that a much larger percentage of Asian or white parents with kids scoring between 120 and 131 submit parent referrals than black or Hispanic parents with kids in the same score range, then the referral system needs to be fixed.
Anonymous wrote:AAP is biased against whites, not minorities.
Anonymous wrote:that’s BS, the program is run by white supremacists. We can see who is underrepresented and that is who they hate the most. They are just mad because the ones the consider honorary whites have happened to fair better than they have when it comes to getting admitted into to the programAnonymous wrote:AAP is biased against whites, not minorities.