Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TJ and AAP aren't analogous here. Kids who have the aptitude to handle TJ but aren't accepted into TJ will still have a full load of AP/IB classes available at their base schools and will still have excellent college prospects.

Kids who have the aptitude for AAP but aren't accepted will not be given a good education in gen ed at most FCPS schools. They will be bored, unchallenged, and largely ignored by the teacher throughout elementary school.

They are not analogous. TJ is an Asian problem and AAP is a white problem.

Largely because white families aren't interested in TJ anymore. Application numbers bear that out in a big and obvious way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TJ and AAP aren't analogous here. Kids who have the aptitude to handle TJ but aren't accepted into TJ will still have a full load of AP/IB classes available at their base schools and will still have excellent college prospects.

Kids who have the aptitude for AAP but aren't accepted will not be given a good education in gen ed at most FCPS schools. They will be bored, unchallenged, and largely ignored by the teacher throughout elementary school.

They are not analogous. TJ is an Asian problem and AAP is a white problem.

Anonymous wrote:TJ and AAP aren't analogous here. Kids who have the aptitude to handle TJ but aren't accepted into TJ will still have a full load of AP/IB classes available at their base schools and will still have excellent college prospects.

Kids who have the aptitude for AAP but aren't accepted will not be given a good education in gen ed at most FCPS schools. They will be bored, unchallenged, and largely ignored by the teacher throughout elementary school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You could provide that advanced enrichment for your child by either enrolling them in outside programs (really, what are we talking about--Advanced Math(?), put them in AoPS or something like it, lots of online places too like JHU CTY and other online G/T programs), or doing it at home in a homeschooling environment. The point of closing the achievement gap is to actually close it when it will matter. So if your White/Asian kid is SOL, then take it upon yourself to figure out a different road for your child. Tons of Hispanic/AA parents aren't able to do so for their kids because of the systemic nature of the problem. So give it a rest! There is a national debate on this issue. Don't shake your head and say "we believe in BLM" but then not if it causes some disadvantage to our White/Asian kid because if that is the case then truly we DON'T believe in BLM.

Are we concerned with closing the achievement gap in actual society, or do you just want public schools to close it on paper? The achievement gap will increase if affluent white and Asian kids don’t receive appropriate academic instruction in public school, so they instead seek out enrichment programs, tutors, or private school. Those kids will end up even more ahead than they would have been if they had been placed in AAP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child is at an AAP center and I was told by two teachers they heard that the county is trying to reduce the number in AAP because it has become watered down. And the reason for a larger pool to consider was to identify those in minority groups whose parents might not apply on their own. Both make sense to me. But many parents are upset because they assumed if they were in the pool that acceptance would be a breeze.

Yeah. The program has become too watered down, so the way to fix it is to get rid of all of those pesky 99th percentile kids. Sounds legit.

To make room for AA.

Well, here's my cynical view after reading the entire AAP equity report. Asians are highly over-represented, Whites are over-represented, and URMs are under-represented, despite the efforts to get more URMs into AAP. They can't lower the standards more than they already have, since they would end up with kids being unsuccessful in AAP. Therefore, the way to close the representation gap is to get rid of some white and Asian kids. The AAP equity report also showed that the average test scores for the URMs who are admitted to AAP are significantly lower than the test scores for the white and Asian kids. If they got rid of the bottom white and Asian kids, that gap in test scores would become even more pronounced. By not admitting the white and Asian kids with the highest test scores, the average test scores for the kids in those groups admitted to AAP will decrease. On paper, it will look like FCPS has solved the achievement gap!

I don't think FCPS cares at all about how well their programs actually serve kids. They care about looking good on paper. For years now, they've pressured URM kids who are not qualified to take AP classes to do so. Most of the agencies that rate high schools care about URM participation in AP classes. They don't care about whether the URM kids actually pass the AP exam. This is the same. It doesn't matter if AAP is truly AAP. What matters is that they can create graphs and tables that show equal representation among all races and relatively equal qualifying scores.

Wow. So, reject Asian-American and White kids with high test scores but OK GBRS. That makes the test score gap a bit better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"homogeneous group of students who are indistinguishable from one another"

Well you've revealed your bias. You're not going to be able to make a convincing case for your views after that. Randomly tossing in words like "correctly" and "undeniably" isn't going to fool anyone.

I mean, that's what college admissions officers say about TJ and its students

[citation needed]

You can't cite conversations and no admissions officer in their right mind would ever put it in writing.

But yeah, they can't tell the difference between the 150+ applicants every year who all have 4.3+ GPAs, all do Model UN or Debate, all have the same AP profile, all have attempted to start up their own non-profits, and all want to study some flavor of engineering, CS, or pre-med. And if you've been on the ground at TJ at all in the last ten years, you know that this is the reality.

So let me guess, you want to diversify TJ by admitting students who will have lower GPAs, participate in fewer extracurricular activities, and have no career goals.

Anonymous wrote:
Yes in practice giving the underdog kid extra help throughout their education life will yield a measure of success in closing the achievement gap. I think what people are really having trouble with here is the concept of what "closing the achievement gap" means and how "equity" is used to do that. Unfortunately, what you should be lobbying for as a parent of White/Asian origin whose kids are being left out is what a previous poster noted--incorporate a robust GenEd program so that you don't feel like your kids are "losing out" on an education. Whether you just arrived to this country from S. Korea or India isn't the issue. Chances are, your smart kid will get into a good college and earn a rewarding degree to become successful irrespective of AAP placement in elementary school. However, there's less empirical data that the same occurs for the H/AA kid that shows potential. Chances are, without giving them a leg up in the process, that kid's trajectory is not the same. It's not great to hear, I get that, but it is what is being discussed in all circles dealing with this issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think it is related. The discourse on BLM may have originated with police brutality but the larger context of what is being debated is the systemic nature of racism that has caused massive inequity in American life. It applies to education moreso than anything else because that is the trajectory you draw for the men and women of Hispanic/AA origin. It starts at a very young age and by giving these individuals a healthy "equity" boost throughout their education life to retain for the future trajectory in closing the achievement (and income) gap. For the posters who question what happens when the H/AA kid start flailing in AAP, the appropriate response would be to provide MORE support to those kids to get through the course content. That is what closing the achievement gap is all about. I'm sure we have all seen the graphic for the difference between equality and equity. (You can Google it if you haven't.) But what is being discussed here broadly especially by parents whose kids didn't make it to the AAP program is the notion of equality. What FCPS is trying to attain is equity. In an admissions scenario (where space is limited), the two are mutually exclusive. Equity means you're giving the underdog a leg up. Equality means the underdog will always be an underdog because you're going to hold that individual to the same standard as everyone else. You'll never be able to close the achievement gap if you employ a strategy of "equality for all."

so you promote kids above their heads and then give them extra resources (which other kids will notice) and then that somehow closes the achievement gap? That seems like a great way to engender resentment and ultimately litigation

Yes in practice giving the underdog kid extra help throughout their education life will yield a measure of success in closing the achievement gap. I think what people are really having trouble with here is the concept of what "closing the achievement gap" means and how "equity" is used to do that. Unfortunately, what you should be lobbying for as a parent of White/Asian origin whose kids are being left out is what a previous poster noted--incorporate a robust GenEd program so that you don't feel like your kids are "losing out" on an education. Whether you just arrived to this country from S. Korea or India isn't the issue. Chances are, your smart kid will get into a good college and earn a rewarding degree to become successful irrespective of AAP placement in elementary school. However, there's less empirical data that the same occurs for the H/AA kid that shows potential. Chances are, without giving them a leg up in the process, that kid's trajectory is not the same. It's not great to hear, I get that, but it is what is being discussed in all circles dealing with this issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It doesn't inherently help a basketball team to win games to have players from diverse perspectives. But it demonstrably and undeniably helps students to prepare to change the world to have students around them from diverse perspectives.

Kind of. I doubt Harvard looks for diversity when admitting kids to its math program. Diverse perspectives are highly important for humanities and social studies, but kind of irrelevant in STEM fields. If the main point of TJ is to be an elite STEM school, then I'm not sure that the diverse perspectives help much.

I would agree with you if the point of studying math were just to do math. But given that the point of it, and other STEM fields and of course in theory TJ, is to serve the best interests of humanity, diverse perspectives are a non-negotiable.

Yes but the perspective of the Asian Americans is not taken into account so there is no diverse perspective and there is only the perspectives of the preferred minority groups or the perspectives of the groups with adequate political clout. It is not in the interest of humanity to have Asian Americans be subjected to blatant racial discrimination.

It's not actually discriminatory as much as it is profiling. Asian Americans are by far the most represented in most STEM fields, irrespective of the school or program you're discussing. So, you can't say that it meets the measure of being discriminatory. But certainly many Asian Americans fall out of the student body based on racial profiling of the class and the desire to seek a more "diverse" class in the school or program.

To the same point on the McKinsey article's poster and the response, I agree that FCPS is trying to close the achievement gap and that there are two ways to go about it. The immediate tool is by limiting or profiling the applicants to the AAP program and selecting a representative group of Hispanics/AA/White/Asians who may do very well in the Level IV program keeping in mind that it is not truly a gifted/talented program, but works more like an honors program. If you were to think about an ideal class makeup for the Level IV, you could say that a "diverse" group may be White/Asians who fall between the +1 and +2 SD, while for Hispanic/AA it's kids who are in the +1 SD or better. For the White/Asian kids who are clearly in the +2 - +3 SD, they are likely screened out for the service. Is it fair? The answer to that is "it depends." For the White/Asians who are in that category and got rejected, it may not seem fair. For the Hispanic/AA kids who were allowed into the program because the empty seat, they would see it as very fair.

I agree that it would help if FCPS were to provide a adequate summary of the "holistic" review. Having worked in Admissions most of my career, I can tell you that "holistic" refers to a lot more than just scores on a test, GBRS, recommendations or work samples. It certainly refers to a program's "holistic" demographic profile of students. Most people are aware of this when it comes to college admissions because quotas are inherently understood by parents. It seems though that FCPS parents are completely unaware that quotas could also be heavily in play at the elementary school level when program measures are evaluated for closing the achievement gap.

Of course parents are aware - that's pretty much the point of this whole thread. Holistic means test scores, GBRS, work samples, + race. For people comparing this to college admissions, that situation sucks but obviously there are other colleges. Here, a truly gifted Asian could be left out in favor of a lesser qualified student and have no other options for advanced enrichment. Great, you increased diversity, but to the detriment of a deserving child.

You could provide that advanced enrichment for your child by either enrolling them in outside programs (really, what are we talking about--Advanced Math(?), put them in AoPS or something like it, lots of online places too like JHU CTY and other online G/T programs), or doing it at home in a homeschooling environment. The point of closing the achievement gap is to actually close it when it will matter. So if your White/Asian kid is SOL, then take it upon yourself to figure out a different road for your child. Tons of Hispanic/AA parents aren't able to do so for their kids because of the systemic nature of the problem. So give it a rest! There is a national debate on this issue. Don't shake your head and say "we believe in BLM" but then not if it causes some disadvantage to our White/Asian kid because if that is the case then truly we DON'T believe in BLM.

What are you referring to when you say systemic nature of the problem? Seems like that's what needs should be addressed in order to increase diversity. And you are making the assumption that everyone in this situation has the ability to pay for all these outside programs.

You're really reaching now to bring up BLM. These issues are not related.

I think it is related. The discourse on BLM may have originated with police brutality but the larger context of what is being debated is the systemic nature of racism that has caused massive inequity in American life. It applies to education moreso than anything else because that is the trajectory you draw for the men and women of Hispanic/AA origin. It starts at a very young age and by giving these individuals a healthy "equity" boost throughout their education life to retain for the future trajectory in closing the achievement (and income) gap. For the posters who question what happens when the H/AA kid start flailing in AAP, the appropriate response would be to provide MORE support to those kids to get through the course content. That is what closing the achievement gap is all about. I'm sure we have all seen the graphic for the difference between equality and equity. (You can Google it if you haven't.) But what is being discussed here broadly especially by parents whose kids didn't make it to the AAP program is the notion of equality. What FCPS is trying to attain is equity. In an admissions scenario (where space is limited), the two are mutually exclusive. Equity means you're giving the underdog a leg up. Equality means the underdog will always be an underdog because you're going to hold that individual to the same standard as everyone else. You'll never be able to close the achievement gap if you employ a strategy of "equality for all."

How was it possible for Asians (many of whom are relatively recent immigrants with no social status or connections and English being a foreign language to them) to overcome the "achievement gap" with similar obstacles and discrimination faced by Hispanics and blacks in America? Don't say only elites cam to US because clearly that is not the case- most Asian immigrants came to US for economic reasons.

Didn't they overcome the gap by working hard and studying hard or maybe even harder? Do you want to try going to S. Korea and try to become one of the top students there when you do not speak Korean? How much extra effort and studying would that take? So mow we want to discourage hard working and hard studying?

US is the laughingstock of the world now because we moved away from merit based system too much in the last several decades among other reasons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"homogeneous group of students who are indistinguishable from one another"

Well you've revealed your bias. You're not going to be able to make a convincing case for your views after that. Randomly tossing in words like "correctly" and "undeniably" isn't going to fool anyone.

I mean, that's what college admissions officers say about TJ and its students

[citation needed]

You can't cite conversations and no admissions officer in their right mind would ever put it in writing.

But yeah, they can't tell the difference between the 150+ applicants every year who all have 4.3+ GPAs, all do Model UN or Debate, all have the same AP profile, all have attempted to start up their own non-profits, and all want to study some flavor of engineering, CS, or pre-med. And if you've been on the ground at TJ at all in the last ten years, you know that this is the reality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think it is related. The discourse on BLM may have originated with police brutality but the larger context of what is being debated is the systemic nature of racism that has caused massive inequity in American life. It applies to education moreso than anything else because that is the trajectory you draw for the men and women of Hispanic/AA origin. It starts at a very young age and by giving these individuals a healthy "equity" boost throughout their education life to retain for the future trajectory in closing the achievement (and income) gap. For the posters who question what happens when the H/AA kid start flailing in AAP, the appropriate response would be to provide MORE support to those kids to get through the course content. That is what closing the achievement gap is all about. I'm sure we have all seen the graphic for the difference between equality and equity. (You can Google it if you haven't.) But what is being discussed here broadly especially by parents whose kids didn't make it to the AAP program is the notion of equality. What FCPS is trying to attain is equity. In an admissions scenario (where space is limited), the two are mutually exclusive. Equity means you're giving the underdog a leg up. Equality means the underdog will always be an underdog because you're going to hold that individual to the same standard as everyone else. You'll never be able to close the achievement gap if you employ a strategy of "equality for all."

so you promote kids above their heads and then give them extra resources (which other kids will notice) and then that somehow closes the achievement gap? That seems like a great way to engender resentment and ultimately litigation

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"homogeneous group of students who are indistinguishable from one another"

Well you've revealed your bias. You're not going to be able to make a convincing case for your views after that. Randomly tossing in words like "correctly" and "undeniably" isn't going to fool anyone.

I mean, that's what college admissions officers say about TJ and its students

[citation needed]

You can't cite conversations and no admissions officer in their right mind would ever put it in writing.

But yeah, they can't tell the difference between the 150+ applicants every year who all have 4.3+ GPAs, all do Model UN or Debate, all have the same AP profile, all have attempted to start up their own non-profits, and all want to study some flavor of engineering, CS, or pre-med. And if you've been on the ground at TJ at all in the last ten years, you know that this is the reality.