Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With HOPE requiring comparative ratings within cultural group, it's tough for Asian American students to make in with just good scores like 90 or 92, need exceptional scores like 98 or 99 on iready. Ofcourse, this is after acing nnat/cogat.

And this is actually why I wondered on this or another thread if there were trolls posting fake rejections. Because it brings out the people convinced that this is how the committee worked, even though people who claimed to have been on the committee have repeatedly said that's not how it worked.

Who, when and where have they said?

Anonymous wrote:
6often and 4 sometimes iready 96/80
He got level 2 (math and reading)
during the 2nd grade and president of class.
Fairfax
Nnat 139 / cogat 135
In

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes .
But with these scores I’m not optimistic at all!

When you appeal, make sure you do every possible parent write-up (if you didn't do the questionnaire before, do it). Provide specific stories that illustrate every HOPE criteria where your child got a "sometimes." Make sure to paint a detailed picture of your child. In addition, grab the old GBRS, and while using stories about the HOPE criteria also think of the way GBRS talks about kids as giving you a list of keywords to hit on.

Add work samples that show complex academic-type work. I've used things like:

* a several word dictionary for a language my kid was developing (the county shows an example of hieroglyphics developed by a kid, which is a similar idea)
* Reflections Art Contest literature entries with the artist's statement
* NRICH math problems solved by my kid
* a math board game my kid made up (this kid was board game obsessed)
* an imaginary society my kid came up with while playing (this kid did this regularly, so it was pretty natural - I just photographed it and had her explain it)

Our AART also said the kid should write an explanation of their work samples, in the first person.

Any ideas for what to include in appeal if child got low score for “Is sensitive to larger or deeper issues of human concern”? Are there behavior examples for what teachers see in class that would demonstrate an always? Or what lessons in school give teachers visibility to score this one? Wondering what to include in an appeal if not high from teacher in application. Thanks,

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is so much speculation and guess work around this process. Is it possible for FCPS to have an AAP workshop to explain how decisions are made? It sounds like subjective decisions are more than objective decisions

Really what it should be is X score OR teacher recommendation. That would really save a lot of time assembling a packet for 2000+ kids, having a committee meet and review 2000+ kids etc., and go a long way to make things more transparent for families.

Equity is important, and the HOPE approach tackles the equity gap head-on. Previously, we let scores and recommendations dictate, leading to a widening equity gap. HOPE allows comparative rating within cultural groups, which should get us to desired equity and diversity. HOPE offers a new sense of hope for a better equitable tomorrow.

Hey, it’s the Equity Strawman poster again. Why does this person troll all the school threads trying to rile up people who actually agree with them?

(Also why do so many people fall for this shtick?)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With HOPE requiring comparative ratings within cultural group, it's tough for Asian American students to make in with just good scores like 90 or 92, need exceptional scores like 98 or 99 on iready. Ofcourse, this is after acing nnat/cogat.

And this is actually why I wondered on this or another thread if there were trolls posting fake rejections. Because it brings out the people convinced that this is how the committee worked, even though people who claimed to have been on the committee have repeatedly said that's not how it worked.

Who, when and where have they said?

Read the thread. There are several Teachers, it is hard to know how many because most of people post as anonymous, who said that they were not directed to compare kids based on racial groupings or economic groups or eye color grouping. OK< so I tossed in the last one but I am assuming that if they didn’t compare kids in racial or economic groups that they didn’t compare based on eye color or hair color….

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is so much speculation and guess work around this process. Is it possible for FCPS to have an AAP workshop to explain how decisions are made? It sounds like subjective decisions are more than objective decisions

Really what it should be is X score OR teacher recommendation. That would really save a lot of time assembling a packet for 2000+ kids, having a committee meet and review 2000+ kids etc., and go a long way to make things more transparent for families.

Equity is important, and the HOPE approach tackles the equity gap head-on. Previously, we let scores and recommendations dictate, leading to a widening equity gap. HOPE allows comparative rating within cultural groups, which should get us to desired equity and diversity. HOPE offers a new sense of hope for a better equitable tomorrow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is so much speculation and guess work around this process. Is it possible for FCPS to have an AAP workshop to explain how decisions are made? It sounds like subjective decisions are more than objective decisions

Really what it should be is X score OR teacher recommendation. That would really save a lot of time assembling a packet for 2000+ kids, having a committee meet and review 2000+ kids etc., and go a long way to make things more transparent for families.

Equity is important, and the HOPE approach tackles the equity gap head-on. Previously, we let scores and recommendations dictate, leading to a widening equity gap. HOPE allows comparative rating within cultural groups, which should get us to desired equity and diversity. HOPE offers a new sense of hope for a better equitable tomorrow.

Is there somewhere that explains how HOPE questions “allow comparative rating within cultural groups”? I’m confused if that means reviewers look for always for some cultures and often for other cultures? Or is it that different questions now allow for better ratings for some/all when ask things like if a student is self-aware, how interacts with adults or shows compassion for others?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With HOPE requiring comparative ratings within cultural group, it's tough for Asian American students to make in with just good scores like 90 or 92, need exceptional scores like 98 or 99 on iready. Ofcourse, this is after acing nnat/cogat.

And this is actually why I wondered on this or another thread if there were trolls posting fake rejections. Because it brings out the people convinced that this is how the committee worked, even though people who claimed to have been on the committee have repeatedly said that's not how it worked.

Who, when and where have they said?

Anonymous wrote:Why is this program called HOPE? As if otherwise there is none?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes .
But with these scores I’m not optimistic at all!

When you appeal, make sure you do every possible parent write-up (if you didn't do the questionnaire before, do it). Provide specific stories that illustrate every HOPE criteria where your child got a "sometimes." Make sure to paint a detailed picture of your child. In addition, grab the old GBRS, and while using stories about the HOPE criteria also think of the way GBRS talks about kids as giving you a list of keywords to hit on.

Add work samples that show complex academic-type work. I've used things like:

* a several word dictionary for a language my kid was developing (the county shows an example of hieroglyphics developed by a kid, which is a similar idea)
* Reflections Art Contest literature entries with the artist's statement
* NRICH math problems solved by my kid
* a math board game my kid made up (this kid was board game obsessed)
* an imaginary society my kid came up with while playing (this kid did this regularly, so it was pretty natural - I just photographed it and had her explain it)

Our AART also said the kid should write an explanation of their work samples, in the first person.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is so much speculation and guess work around this process. Is it possible for FCPS to have an AAP workshop to explain how decisions are made? It sounds like subjective decisions are more than objective decisions

Really what it should be is X score OR teacher recommendation. That would really save a lot of time assembling a packet for 2000+ kids, having a committee meet and review 2000+ kids etc., and go a long way to make things more transparent for families.

Equity is important, and the HOPE approach tackles the equity gap head-on. Previously, we let scores and recommendations dictate, leading to a widening equity gap. HOPE allows comparative rating within cultural groups, which should get us to desired equity and diversity. HOPE offers a new sense of hope for a better equitable tomorrow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is so much speculation and guess work around this process. Is it possible for FCPS to have an AAP workshop to explain how decisions are made? It sounds like subjective decisions are more than objective decisions

Really what it should be is X score OR teacher recommendation. That would really save a lot of time assembling a packet for 2000+ kids, having a committee meet and review 2000+ kids etc., and go a long way to make things more transparent for families.

Equity is important, and the HOPE approach tackles the equity gap head-on. Previously, we let scores and recommendations dictate, leading to a widening equity gap. HOPE allows comparative rating within cultural groups, which should get us to desired equity and diversity. HOPE offers a new sense of hope for a better equitable tomorrow.