Anonymous wrote:

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.

Precisely.

These students would be receiving the AAP curriculum and would be "counted" (for metrics purposes).

They will be receiving a "version" of AAP. I imagine the AAP curriculum can be implemented in a number of ways. I know our center has done away with parts of the curriculum my older child had.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would certainly like to hear a strong statement from FCPS against prepping though I think it’s largely unenforceable, unfortunately.

Why bother making a statement when it won't have any effect? At this point, they'd be better off providing or recommending prep materials to everyone to level the playing field. Or they would be better off switching to a new test and not telling parents precisely what the test is.

This.

If all AAP is local, and they want 25% of each group in AAP (across the district, not necessarily in each school), you are going to see extreme variations in what AAP means in each school. That is why centers have been so good in the south and east part of the county. In other parts....weathier parts...having AAP in each school would be ok.

I have concerns about how each principal will feel pressure to NOT make it look like the AAP class is getting more/better than other classes and essentially dilutes the idea of AAP so as not to ruffle feathers. Basically, a pressure toward the mean rather than a pursuit of the highest standards. I've seen this in our base school with resistance to offering more than one classroom of advanced math in 6th grade. The principal was against it. Perhaps he didn't want it to look like the brown and black kids were stuck in the only non-adv math class. I don't know. But if placement into the adv math class was based on test scores, historically the brown and black kids had lower passrates...so less likely to be in adv math in 6th grade.

In any case, I think principals at AAP centers are pretty good at balancing the needs of each group because each group (AAP kids and reg kids) are a sizable constituency. And those principals understand that it's ok to do different things for different kids...each getting their needs met. Principals in non-center schools are not trained in gifted ed, and they will be afraid of looking like they favor the "smart kids".

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why FCPS want to increase more student in AAP since many parents already complaining AAP now has been watering. If FCPS believe there is so high percentage of kids can go to AAP it only means the GE is too easy, they should consider putting some AAP Level curriculum to GE.

It is not helping the kids by put them in AAP because they are minority but CogAT is not over 97%. they won’t catch up to the AAP and always in the bottom of the class.

I agree with you, but FCPS isn't necessarily trying to improve educational outcomes. They're trying to look better in the US News& World report school rankings, GreatSchools, etc. One example of this is that the USNWR high school rankings give you credit for the number of kids taking AP classes and the URMs taking AP classes, but they don't seem to care as much about whether those kids actually pass the class. So, FCPS encourages tons of kids to take AP, FCPS pays for the exams, and then a lot of kids only score 1 or 2 on the test.

Right now, the educational fad is the achievement gap, and all of those ranking sites have some sort of achievement gap metric. FCPS is doing everything it can to look better on paper with this. I'm not sure how much they care about whether they're serving highly gifted kids who will be more bored with a bloated AAP or the URMs who don't belong there and will struggle with the curriculum.

Anonymous wrote:I would certainly like to hear a strong statement from FCPS against prepping though I think it’s largely unenforceable, unfortunately.

Why bother making a statement when it won't have any effect? At this point, they'd be better off providing or recommending prep materials to everyone to level the playing field. Or they would be better off switching to a new test and not telling parents precisely what the test is.

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.

Precisely.

These students would be receiving the AAP curriculum and would be "counted" (for metrics purposes).

I would certainly like to hear a strong statement from FCPS against prepping though I think it’s largely unenforceable, unfortunately.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Quotas will discriminate against asian kids, period.

This quota requirement will result in asian kids with scores in the 130 to 135 range being left out of AAP, while kids of other races with scores in the 110s to 130 range are accepted.

It is completely racist.

I think it is racist to say Asian kids are smarter.

Don't be a fool. Your trolling attempt is weak.

It is fact based that asian kids score higher on qualifying tests than any other racial group.

Having racial quotas will punish and exclude asian kids.

It is also fact based that a lot of the higher scores are based on heavy prepping by Asian kids. FCPS needs to figure something out.

So you want to punish those that do extra studying and try hard. Even the Communists know better.

See 6:05.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Quotas will discriminate against asian kids, period.

This quota requirement will result in asian kids with scores in the 130 to 135 range being left out of AAP, while kids of other races with scores in the 110s to 130 range are accepted.

It is completely racist.

I think it is racist to say Asian kids are smarter.

Don't be a fool. Your trolling attempt is weak.

It is fact based that asian kids score higher on qualifying tests than any other racial group.

Having racial quotas will punish and exclude asian kids.

It is also fact based that a lot of the higher scores are based on heavy prepping by Asian kids. FCPS needs to figure something out.

So you want to punish those that do extra studying and try hard. Even the Communists know better.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Quotas will discriminate against asian kids, period.

This quota requirement will result in asian kids with scores in the 130 to 135 range being left out of AAP, while kids of other races with scores in the 110s to 130 range are accepted.

It is completely racist.

I think it is racist to say Asian kids are smarter.

Don't be a fool. Your trolling attempt is weak.

It is fact based that asian kids score higher on qualifying tests than any other racial group.

Having racial quotas will punish and exclude asian kids.

It is also fact based that a lot of the higher scores are based on heavy prepping by Asian kids. FCPS needs to figure something out.

Anonymous wrote:I thought NNAT score was basically an IQ estimate or close proxy? So that's how you'd know.

Lol. No.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Quotas will discriminate against asian kids, period.

This quota requirement will result in asian kids with scores in the 130 to 135 range being left out of AAP, while kids of other races with scores in the 110s to 130 range are accepted.

It is completely racist.

I think it is racist to say Asian kids are smarter.

Check out TJ’s demographics and see for yourself

You think demographics at a school proves a racial group is smarter than another?

The system has a broken. The skewed demographics are proof of this.

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.

Quotas will discriminate against asian kids, period.

This quota requirement will result in asian kids with scores in the 130 to 135 range being left out of AAP, while kids of other races with scores in the 110s to 130 range are accepted.

It is completely racist.

I think it is racist to say Asian kids are smarter.

Check out TJ’s demographics and see for yourself

There are many kiddos in Level IV who are not placed appropriately - they are struggling with the advanced material. If we’re going to add more kids to Level IV, then we need to create a Level V to meet the needs of the kids who truly are advanced.

- AAP Teacher

Anonymous wrote:18:58 is right, there's no cap being implied for any race/group... the stated goal is 25% "or more" of all Asian kids in FCPS would be in the AAP program, and that 25% "or more" of all Latino kids in FCPS would be in the AAP program, and so forth for each group. This in no way implies that "only 25% of AAP kids can be of status/group ____" as some poster(s) seemed to think.

The bigger concern is that >25% of FCPS kids would be in the AAP program... that's moving in the wrong direction.

Or just call it tracking with AAP being the new "advanced track" if that's what you want to turn it into by making it that large of a cohort... and then develop a new pullout program for the kids who really need it (top 1-3% or whatever) and would otherwise be underserved due to the expansion/watering down of AAP... could call it AAAP.

If FCPS wants to declare victory on 25% minority, they have already achieved that w/ asian. GREAT JOB. don't mess this up.