Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I definitely agree that no group is being intentionally targeted. But if the screening is too reliant on subjective criteria, then factors like whether the teacher likes the child's smile (on the classroom/GBRS side) or whether their name reflects an ethnicity the reviewer can empathize with (on the screening side) are always at risk to play a role.

I disagree. Someone posted this earlier:

"If you scroll down to page 66, you can see average CogAT and NNAT scores of LIV eligible kids broken down by race. It's very enlightening. For the kids who got accepted to AAP - CogAT Q score: Asian mean = 130.95. AA mean: 119.8 Hispanic mean: 118.9"

Asians have to meet a higher standard. Why is race included in the application? And I'm not just talking about names reflecting ethnicity - there is a Federal Ethnic Code field on the screening sheet.

It's outrageous that the AAP board members can make these decisions without having to explain or be held accountable. All anyone gets is the "holistic" canned response, which judging from the rejections seen here means arbitrary or even discriminatory.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I also suspect that the number of kids with high scores not accepted is very small. I do think the County should be able to provide something specific so that it is something that you can look to address if you reapply. But I don't think that the County is targeting specific kids or groups to exclude.

I definitely agree that no group is being intentionally targeted. But if the screening is too reliant on subjective criteria, then factors like whether the teacher likes the child's smile (on the classroom/GBRS side) or whether their name reflects an ethnicity the reviewer can empathize with (on the screening side) are always at risk to play a role.

Anonymous wrote:
No, I don't. I thought my kid wouldn't get accepted because he is a quieter kid and not someone who looks to stand out. He was in pool with his test scores. He enjoys those activities and that makes me smile. I love seeing him involved in those type of programs but I love seeing him in his athletic programs as well because he is doing something he enjoys. I think he would do great at AoPS and have suggested to him that it is a possibility if he wanted to do more math but he wasn't interested. I have no problem saying that those types of programs provide an enrichment that helps him in school and when he is tested. It is simply a different type of tutoring.

Anonymous wrote:
I also suspect that the number of kids with high scores not accepted is very small. I do think the County should be able to provide something specific so that it is something that you can look to address if you reapply. But I don't think that the County is targeting specific kids or groups to exclude.

Anonymous wrote:
I don't think there is a way to make the process transparent enough to make everyone happy because there are a good number of parents willing to game the system. I don't think test scores are the answer, they are too easily skewed to benefit parents will to pay for or provide enrichment. I don't think the GBRS's are a great solution for all the reasons that people have discussed here.

Anonymous wrote:
I also suspect that the number of kids with high scores not accepted is very small. I do think the County should be able to provide something specific so that it is something that you can look to address if you reapply. But I don't think that the County is targeting specific kids or groups to exclude.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to see the data for race, sex, school, cogat scores, nnat scores, gbrs, dra, and wisc scores (when available) and accepted/rejected. I bet there would be some shocking trends.

They'll never let you see that.

Why not? Why couldn't you FOIA that information? There's no personal sensitive information in what you're asking--you're not asking for the child's name! I think it's entire possible to FOIA it, and it can't be held back as 'deliberative' especially if deliberation has already occurred and it's not a matter of national security, but rather transparency in a process against program criteria/claim. I think FCAG could easily make the request and publish their findings, if they wanted to.

I'm not sure what a FOIA could turn up, I'm just basing it on the fact that we've sent multiple emails trying to clarify the basis of the decision and gotten multiple responses with some variant of the nebulous "it's a holistic process!" claim.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If the child respects their education then the child will be finishing their work and doing extra work without prompting leading the higher GBRS's and fewer complaints about the child being disruptive.

And let's keep in mind that we are talking about 7 and 8 year olds here. A child may very well go to tutoring and do the extra work because their parents make them. That does not equate with "respecting education." That means that his/her parents respect education and the kid knows better than to say no. FCPS discounting those activities is a way of saying "where would you child be if they didn't do an extra 2 hours of math at AoPS every weekend." Is your child doing well because they are gifted or because they being pushed ahead by their parents? My kid asks to do robotics and chess and coding club because they are fun and engaging. He gets to hang out with friends for an extra hour, build things, and play games. My kid has never asked to go for extra math tutoring. He does ask his Dad to make up math problems for him and he does love solving logic puzzles. we asked him about math tutoring this past spring because DL was not exactly exciting and he looked at us like we were crazy.

You pretty clearly think that your kid is better and more deserving of AAP than all of the people posting here whose kids got rejected with high scores. The committee could have just as easily looked at your kid and assumed that a child doing chess, coding club, and robotics clearly has over-involved tiger parents and wouldn't be nearly as impressive without this level of enrichment. Your kid also could have had a teacher that was a bad fit, and ended up with a poor GBRS in 2nd. Your kid isn't more deserving of AAP than the PP's kids. Your kid is just luckier with a very random, biased system.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
FCPS's holistic approach weighs the test scores with Teacher input. I don't see too many people with 4CO and a higher CogAT or WISC not being accepted. I do see high test scores with GBRS's that include Occasionally Observe not being accepted. That seems to be a big part of the trend. I get it, parents are annoyed that their kids are bored and need more of a challenge but don't seem to be able to wrap their heads around the fact that the Teachers are not seeing it that way. They don't see the bored genius, they see the kid distracting others who isn't finishing his work. Is that because they are bored or have ADHD or are just not interested in being in school because they are 7. The report says that FCPS needs something better then the GBRSs but do you really think that a kid who is not completing their work and chatting with their neighbors is going to do well on any Teacher observation/evaluation? Your kids Teachers are going to be involved in the selection process.

Why do you assume that a lower GBRS means that the kid isn't completing the work or is chatting with neighbors? There have been numerous cases here of kids who are above grade level in all subjects, get straight 4s, and still get low GBRS. I've posted before about my DD who had a K, 1st, and 3rd GBRS of 15s and 16s, but a 2nd GBRS that was low. My DD was in the top groups and always completed her work, so there were no issues there. In this case, the teacher was a huge neat freak, so she interpreted my DD's sloppiness as not being motivated to do better rather than as a sign that my DD's fine motor skills were still developing. My DD also didn't raise her hand very much because a few other kids were bullying her, and she didn't want to do anything to call attention to herself. She was also afraid of her teacher, since her biggest bully was the teacher's pet. Why should that teacher's biased opinion be the end all and be all of the program? Amazingly, the year after apparently not showing any gifted traits, my DD once again became a gifted student by the teacher's metrics.

If they used a more comprehensive gifted behavior rating scale, and if they solicited input from more than just the classroom teacher, my DD certainly would have had a higher rating in 2nd. I know someone will show up claiming that GBRS is decided upon in a committee, but when the committee includes the classroom teacher and two people who've never interacted with your child, it ends up being the classroom teacher's sole viewpoint. If every school asked the 2nd grade teacher, the 1st grade teacher, any reading or math specialists with whom your child has worked, or maybe even the music, art, or steam lab teachers for their opinions, a much more accurate rating would result.

I only assume that because many of the parents who have posted about low GBRS have made those comments.

Anonymous wrote:
I only assume that because many of the parents who have posted about low GBRS have made those comments.

Anonymous wrote:
If the child respects their education then the child will be finishing their work and doing extra work without prompting leading the higher GBRS's and fewer complaints about the child being disruptive.

And let's keep in mind that we are talking about 7 and 8 year olds here. A child may very well go to tutoring and do the extra work because their parents make them. That does not equate with "respecting education." That means that his/her parents respect education and the kid knows better than to say no. FCPS discounting those activities is a way of saying "where would you child be if they didn't do an extra 2 hours of math at AoPS every weekend." Is your child doing well because they are gifted or because they being pushed ahead by their parents? My kid asks to do robotics and chess and coding club because they are fun and engaging. He gets to hang out with friends for an extra hour, build things, and play games. My kid has never asked to go for extra math tutoring. He does ask his Dad to make up math problems for him and he does love solving logic puzzles. we asked him about math tutoring this past spring because DL was not exactly exciting and he looked at us like we were crazy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
FCPS's holistic approach weighs the test scores with Teacher input. I don't see too many people with 4CO and a higher CogAT or WISC not being accepted. I do see high test scores with GBRS's that include Occasionally Observe not being accepted. That seems to be a big part of the trend. I get it, parents are annoyed that their kids are bored and need more of a challenge but don't seem to be able to wrap their heads around the fact that the Teachers are not seeing it that way. They don't see the bored genius, they see the kid distracting others who isn't finishing his work. Is that because they are bored or have ADHD or are just not interested in being in school because they are 7. The report says that FCPS needs something better then the GBRSs but do you really think that a kid who is not completing their work and chatting with their neighbors is going to do well on any Teacher observation/evaluation? Your kids Teachers are going to be involved in the selection process.

Why do you assume that a lower GBRS means that the kid isn't completing the work or is chatting with neighbors? There have been numerous cases here of kids who are above grade level in all subjects, get straight 4s, and still get low GBRS. I've posted before about my DD who had a K, 1st, and 3rd GBRS of 15s and 16s, but a 2nd GBRS that was low. My DD was in the top groups and always completed her work, so there were no issues there. In this case, the teacher was a huge neat freak, so she interpreted my DD's sloppiness as not being motivated to do better rather than as a sign that my DD's fine motor skills were still developing. My DD also didn't raise her hand very much because a few other kids were bullying her, and she didn't want to do anything to call attention to herself. She was also afraid of her teacher, since her biggest bully was the teacher's pet. Why should that teacher's biased opinion be the end all and be all of the program? Amazingly, the year after apparently not showing any gifted traits, my DD once again became a gifted student by the teacher's metrics.

If they used a more comprehensive gifted behavior rating scale, and if they solicited input from more than just the classroom teacher, my DD certainly would have had a higher rating in 2nd. I know someone will show up claiming that GBRS is decided upon in a committee, but when the committee includes the classroom teacher and two people who've never interacted with your child, it ends up being the classroom teacher's sole viewpoint. If every school asked the 2nd grade teacher, the 1st grade teacher, any reading or math specialists with whom your child has worked, or maybe even the music, art, or steam lab teachers for their opinions, a much more accurate rating would result.