Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people overcomplicating this? For white kids in that 2018-2019 cohort, 596 are in pool and 880 are in AAP. For black kids, 26 were in pool and 154 are in AAP. For Hispanic kids, 72 in pool and 271 in AAP. For Asian kids, 592 were in pool and 677 in AAP. For Multiracial kids, 118 were in pool and 210 in AAP. Even if you assume that all of the pool kids got in, which they didn't, that's still a sizable number of kids who got in without being in pool.

So what I am also seeing with these stats are that about the same number of Asian kids and white kids were in then pool, but 200 more white kids got in through than Asian kids. Thats interesting. I would love to know how many of those from each groups were accepted from original pool and how many were parent referrals in each group. It would shed a little light on the whole Asian bias (they prep, etc.) Any way of getting those stats?

Yup. It's quite interesting, but I doubt FCPS would be willing to give any additional info. My guess is that Asians have a much higher percentage of in-pool rejections than any other race. FCPS frequently says that 2/3 of in-pool kids are accepted. I would not at all be surprised if more than 1/3 of the in-pool Asian kids are rejected, and fewer than 1/3 of the other races combined.

Anonymous wrote:Why are people overcomplicating this? For white kids in that 2018-2019 cohort, 596 are in pool and 880 are in AAP. For black kids, 26 were in pool and 154 are in AAP. For Hispanic kids, 72 in pool and 271 in AAP. For Asian kids, 592 were in pool and 677 in AAP. For Multiracial kids, 118 were in pool and 210 in AAP. Even if you assume that all of the pool kids got in, which they didn't, that's still a sizable number of kids who got in without being in pool.

So what I am also seeing with these stats are that about the same number of Asian kids and white kids were in then pool, but 200 more white kids got in through than Asian kids. Thats interesting. I would love to know how many of those from each groups were accepted from original pool and how many were parent referrals in each group. It would shed a little light on the whole Asian bias (they prep, etc.) Any way of getting those stats?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Clearly reading data and statistics isnt your strong suit which makes your comment about stubbornly clinging to incorrect notions even more funny but to start:
1. those who were in pool and referred by parents/teachers aren't mutually exclusive. In fact Fairfax actively encourages parents to refer because the scores come back too close to the referral cut off date. I referred based on that notice from our school and a day later found out my kid was already in pool.
2.The 20% white overall number of AAP eligible isnt the same as thing as the numbers used for just those in the testing year
3. Your explanation and understanding of statistics used here is just wrong

I'm not responding to your foolishness any longer. You clearly dont know what you're talking about and insist on asserting things that aren't true, aren't stated in this report and are seemingly based on your faulty math skills. Bye

You are hilarious and proof of the Dunning Kruger effect. 1. You CAN NOT be both in pool and parent referred. You can submit forms, but a kid who is in pool is not counted as a parent referral and vice versa. Table 9 clearly shows that the Total of white kids screened for AAP is the Pool + Parent Referred + Teacher Referred. No one is occupying more than one category. 2. I'll give you this one, but the tables show that for the specific 2018-2019 cohort, 880 white kids were AAP eligible out of about 5400 total, so close to 15%. 3. How so? Please explain. I'm all ears. My calculations show that the Z score for a 132 CogAT composite for white kids is 1.39, which corresponds to 9% of the white kids in FCPS. How is this incorrect?

What are your credentials for statistics?

Still waiting, PP. Perhaps you're confused by the Z statistics and think that I'm saying exactly 9% of the kids would be above the threshold. That's clearly ludicrous and not at all what I'm arguing. But, when the numbers follow a rough bell curve that has been fitted, and the curve predicts around 9% of kids as being at/above 132, it's statistically highly unlikely that you would be anywhere close to the 15-20% that you would need to meet your assertion that aside from the rare exception, pretty much all of the kids in AAP are at the 132 threshold. If 9% of the kids are above threshold on the fitted curve, maybe 11% would be above in actuality if the curve is very right tailed.

I'm also waiting for you to explain how only 1400-ish kids were in pool, 2200 were accepted into AAP, yet it's somehow rare for kids to get in without being at the pool threshold. Please explain this logic and any evidence you have to support your viewpoint.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think the issue is that the PP is a hurt mom/dad whose kid may have been one of the ones with a 140+ WISC and then got rejected. That person has been on this and several other threads trying to make sense of it. It doesn't make sense though. With that score, the kid should have found a seat in AAP. Who knows what happened with the Central Committee this year. Maybe it's an anomaly.

I think I'm the PP you're referring to... My kid got in first try scoring in the 99th percentile on the CogAT. It is probably the poster with the faulty math that is the one mad that their kid didnt make it.

Are you the PP saying that it's rare for kids to get in with scores under a 132, or are you the one saying that half of the kids are in with scores under 132?

Why are people overcomplicating this? For white kids in that 2018-2019 cohort, 596 are in pool and 880 are in AAP. For black kids, 26 were in pool and 154 are in AAP. For Hispanic kids, 72 in pool and 271 in AAP. For Asian kids, 592 were in pool and 677 in AAP. For Multiracial kids, 118 were in pool and 210 in AAP. Even if you assume that all of the pool kids got in, which they didn't, that's still a sizable number of kids who got in without being in pool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. There's one Hawaiian kid in the study who is listed as getting into AAP with a NNAT of 102, CogAT V/Q/N of 117/120/122 and GBRS of 12.

These aren't wildly off the mark scores TBH. A high NNAT helps but a low NNAT is discounted.

Actually, these scores are unimpressive. Nothing about them indicates gifted ability.

one of my dc got in with a 106 NNAT, a COGAT 108/130/118 and a 12 GBRS. I was surprised.

Anonymous wrote:Wow. There's one Hawaiian kid in the study who is listed as getting into AAP with a NNAT of 102, CogAT V/Q/N of 117/120/122 and GBRS of 12.

These aren't wildly off the mark scores TBH. A high NNAT helps but a low NNAT is discounted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's hard to know who is right. The report doesn't explain the methodology and data tables well.

Anyone with an iota of common sense recognizes that many kids get in who are "below threshold." PP honestly thinks that kids getting in with scores below 132 are quite rare. Just by sheer math, only 1400 kids are in pool, but 2200 get into AAP in each year. The PP won't address that point, though, since it doesn't fit her worldview that almost all kids in AAP have top 2% scores on the CogAT.

I think the issue is that the PP is a hurt mom/dad whose kid may have been one of the ones with a 140+ WISC and then got rejected. That person has been on this and several other threads trying to make sense of it. It doesn't make sense though. With that score, the kid should have found a seat in AAP. Who knows what happened with the Central Committee this year. Maybe it's an anomaly.

I think I'm the PP you're referring to... My kid got in first try scoring in the 99th percentile on the CogAT. It is probably the poster with the faulty math that is the one mad that their kid didnt make it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really bothers me about racial quotas is that they're lumping groups together in a way that absolves them from including Latinx and AAs. In my kid's AAP classes, most of the Hispanic kids are white kids of Spanish origin and not Latinx. Likewise, most of the black kids are African immigrants and not African Americans. In both cases, it's kids from generally privileged groups taking spots that are nominally intended for underprivileged groups.

You can't possibly be arguing that black people who came here recently from Africa are "privileged" compared with black people who have been living in the States their whole lives? I'm curious to hear about these privileged African countries with free world class educations and free housing and everything else that people are eligible for here.

Nigerians are the highest educated immigrants to come to the U.S., across the board. That isnt cheap.

Not all African's live in huts. geez

Yes, but not all African Americans live in huts either.

.
I'd venture to say those AAs in the program skew to higher SES. Highly educated (and probably higher SES) Africans are more likely to do well so it makes sense that the African immigrants would be more represented in the program.

Wakanda Forever!

Wow. There's one Hawaiian kid in the study who is listed as getting into AAP with a NNAT of 102, CogAT V/Q/N of 117/120/122 and GBRS of 12.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's hard to know who is right. The report doesn't explain the methodology and data tables well.

Anyone with an iota of common sense recognizes that many kids get in who are "below threshold." PP honestly thinks that kids getting in with scores below 132 are quite rare. Just by sheer math, only 1400 kids are in pool, but 2200 get into AAP in each year. The PP won't address that point, though, since it doesn't fit her worldview that almost all kids in AAP have top 2% scores on the CogAT.

I think the issue is that the PP is a hurt mom/dad whose kid may have been one of the ones with a 140+ WISC and then got rejected. That person has been on this and several other threads trying to make sense of it. It doesn't make sense though. With that score, the kid should have found a seat in AAP. Who knows what happened with the Central Committee this year. Maybe it's an anomaly.

I assumed that PP was the strongly pro-equity poster who is trying to create some false narrative that almost all children of all races who get in have gifted level test scores. And thus, excluding Asian or white kids with 140 WISCs is no big deal because all of the kids who got in were somehow above and beyond. Or it's someone with kids in the system who needs to believe that AAP is much more special than it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's hard to know who is right. The report doesn't explain the methodology and data tables well.

Anyone with an iota of common sense recognizes that many kids get in who are "below threshold." PP honestly thinks that kids getting in with scores below 132 are quite rare. Just by sheer math, only 1400 kids are in pool, but 2200 get into AAP in each year. The PP won't address that point, though, since it doesn't fit her worldview that almost all kids in AAP have top 2% scores on the CogAT.

I think the issue is that the PP is a hurt mom/dad whose kid may have been one of the ones with a 140+ WISC and then got rejected. That person has been on this and several other threads trying to make sense of it. It doesn't make sense though. With that score, the kid should have found a seat in AAP. Who knows what happened with the Central Committee this year. Maybe it's an anomaly.

Anonymous wrote:

It's hard to know who is right. The report doesn't explain the methodology and data tables well.

Anyone with an iota of common sense recognizes that many kids get in who are "below threshold." PP honestly thinks that kids getting in with scores below 132 are quite rare. Just by sheer math, only 1400 kids are in pool, but 2200 get into AAP in each year. The PP won't address that point, though, since it doesn't fit her worldview that almost all kids in AAP have top 2% scores on the CogAT.

Anonymous wrote:

Clearly reading data and statistics isnt your strong suit which makes your comment about stubbornly clinging to incorrect notions even more funny but to start:
1. those who were in pool and referred by parents/teachers aren't mutually exclusive. In fact Fairfax actively encourages parents to refer because the scores come back too close to the referral cut off date. I referred based on that notice from our school and a day later found out my kid was already in pool.
2.The 20% white overall number of AAP eligible isnt the same as thing as the numbers used for just those in the testing year
3. Your explanation and understanding of statistics used here is just wrong

I'm not responding to your foolishness any longer. You clearly dont know what you're talking about and insist on asserting things that aren't true, aren't stated in this report and are seemingly based on your faulty math skills. Bye

You are hilarious and proof of the Dunning Kruger effect. 1. You CAN NOT be both in pool and parent referred. You can submit forms, but a kid who is in pool is not counted as a parent referral and vice versa. Table 9 clearly shows that the Total of white kids screened for AAP is the Pool + Parent Referred + Teacher Referred. No one is occupying more than one category. 2. I'll give you this one, but the tables show that for the specific 2018-2019 cohort, 880 white kids were AAP eligible out of about 5400 total, so close to 15%. 3. How so? Please explain. I'm all ears. My calculations show that the Z score for a 132 CogAT composite for white kids is 1.39, which corresponds to 9% of the white kids in FCPS. How is this incorrect?

What are your credentials for statistics?