Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Different poster.

It was made crystal clear at the Nov AAP expansion meeting that fcps was actively trying to increase under represented minority groups' participation in AAP.

If my memory serves me correctly, there was a slide showing that hispanics and African Americans were woefully under represented as compared to their overall percentage in the district and asians were over represented.

Fcps was very open about this goal.

If that was their goal, they sure picked an interesting way of approaching it. One would think that if increased representation was truly a goal they intended to achieve, they would have expanded the pool on the FAT to 20%, then gamed the GBRS to produce the results they want. Instead, they used the FAT instead of the validated CoGAT, no age-norming, and limited the pool to the top 5% of a new test. Odd approach to increase underrepresented populations.

I would love to see the FAT results. It's probably an adverse impact horror show.

So they have been trying to increase the number of black and Hispanics in the program since 2000, and apparently, despite all the liberal social engineering and gaming of the system, they have failed. Those things tend to happen when objective, real testing scores are a significant admission hurdle. Maybe the "under represented populations" simply are not qualified in large numbers to meet the program admission criteria (and rigorous workload) and therefore should not be admitted. That's right, I said it.

I am curious as to why they would make a statement that they are trying to increase representation of certain populations, but not be called out as to exactly how it was to be done, and more specifically how the admission criteria was going to be interpreted differently from previous years to achieve the goal. I thought this was a public system, how can they keep the admission process completely secret with no outside review, audit, or accountability to assure fairness?

Anonymous wrote:

Does particular AAP Center affect chances of getting in?

OMG, if it hasn't already been answered: Once you are accepted full-time into AAP you are guaranteed a seat in the AAP Center you're assigned. Your child can go there if they want, stay in LLIV or not be in AAP at all. Sorry if somebody already answered this but I couldn't stand wading through all the Tea Party propaganda to find out!

WHAT are you even talking about? I don't think you understood the question....

Anonymous wrote:

Does particular AAP Center affect chances of getting in?

OMG, if it hasn't already been answered: Once you are accepted full-time into AAP you are guaranteed a seat in the AAP Center you're assigned. Your child can go there if they want, stay in LLIV or not be in AAP at all. Sorry if somebody already answered this but I couldn't stand wading through all the Tea Party propaganda to find out!

+100

Does particular AAP Center affect chances of getting in?

OMG, if it hasn't already been answered: Once you are accepted full-time into AAP you are guaranteed a seat in the AAP Center you're assigned. Your child can go there if they want, stay in LLIV or not be in AAP at all. Sorry if somebody already answered this but I couldn't stand wading through all the Tea Party propaganda to find out!

Anonymous wrote:Different poster.

It was made crystal clear at the Nov AAP expansion meeting that fcps was actively trying to increase under represented minority groups' participation in AAP.

If my memory serves me correctly, there was a slide showing that hispanics and African Americans were woefully under represented as compared to their overall percentage in the district and asians were over represented.

Fcps was very open about this goal.

If that was their goal, they sure picked an interesting way of approaching it. One would think that if increased representation was truly a goal they intended to achieve, they would have expanded the pool on the FAT to 20%, then gamed the GBRS to produce the results they want. Instead, they used the FAT instead of the validated CoGAT, no age-norming, and limited the pool to the top 5% of a new test. Odd approach to increase underrepresented populations.

I would love to see the FAT results. It's probably an adverse impact horror show.