Local Norms for AAP In-Pool Determination now Illegal

[Anonymous]

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BVUQLV69E127/$file/Additional%20Information%20Related%20to%20the%20Use%20of%20Local%20Norm%20in%20Creating%20Level%20IV%20Screening%20Pool.pdf

Local Norms for determining in-pool cutoffs for AAP are now illegal. FCPS must comply or risk losing federal funding.

FCPS changed the policy from a universal score of 132 on cogat/NNAT testing to determine “in pool” or automatic referrals for AAP to “local norms”. This has happened to create a more racially and economically balanced number of students in the program. Students from elementary schools with higher overall intelligence are now at a disadvantage as in pool scores are now higher than being in the 99th percentile. Students from elementary schools with lower overall intelligence are at an advantage with in pool cutoff scores lowered to meet the school’s intelligence. For example certain high SES schools have in pool scores of 138 on the cogat to be considered in pool and other schools with lower SES have scores of 120 to be considered in pool.

FCPS has justified denying students in the 99th percentile of intelligence and above from being automatically considered for AAP by suggesting that having similar intellectual peers in their general education classes is the same as “Programming that has increased depth, complexity, and pace in all academic content areas.”

The sole purpose of the change from national scores to local (elementary specific) scores has been to change the percent of students in each race and socioeconomic status to more align with FCPS population.

FCPS is closing the gap from the top down. They are hoping that this will have rippling effects for years to come. Over the years higher SES middle/high schools will have less kids prepared for more advanced coursework at earlier ages. This is just another way to make schools have “equity”.

[Anonymous]

The in-pool scores changed regularly based on testing over time, there was never a set score. Local Norms are based on the top 10% of kids at a particular school, there is nothing wrong or illegal with that. It is simply saying that advanced at each school looks different.

And no student was denied services by local norms because parents can refer. They can also refer in 3rd-7th grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BVUQLV69E127/$file/Additional%20Information%20Related%20to%20the%20Use%20of%20Local%20Norm%20in%20Creating%20Level%20IV%20Screening%20Pool.pdf

Local Norms for determining in-pool cutoffs for AAP are now illegal. FCPS must comply or risk losing federal funding.

FCPS changed the policy from a universal score of 132 on cogat/NNAT testing to determine “in pool” or automatic referrals for AAP to “local norms”. This has happened to create a more racially and economically balanced number of students in the program. Students from elementary schools with higher overall intelligence are now at a disadvantage as in pool scores are now higher than being in the 99th percentile. Students from elementary schools with lower overall intelligence are at an advantage with in pool cutoff scores lowered to meet the school’s intelligence. For example certain high SES schools have in pool scores of 138 on the cogat to be considered in pool and other schools with lower SES have scores of 120 to be considered in pool.

FCPS has justified denying students in the 99th percentile of intelligence and above from being automatically considered for AAP by suggesting that having similar intellectual peers in their general education classes is the same as “Programming that has increased depth, complexity, and pace in all academic content areas.”

The sole purpose of the change from national scores to local (elementary specific) scores has been to change the percent of students in each race and socioeconomic status to more align with FCPS population.

FCPS is closing the gap from the top down. They are hoping that this will have rippling effects for years to come. Over the years higher SES middle/high schools will have less kids prepared for more advanced coursework at earlier ages. This is just another way to make schools have “equity”.

You do realize that most of the kids in AP/IB classes were not in AAP, right? And that AAP doesn’t actually add that much to a kids educational experience. There are plenty of NMSF who were never in AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The in-pool scores changed regularly based on testing over time, there was never a set score. Local Norms are based on the top 10% of kids at a particular school, there is nothing wrong or illegal with that. It is simply saying that advanced at each school looks different.

And no student was denied services by local norms because parents can refer. They can also refer in 3rd-7th grade.

Oh please. The local norms should not have excluded kids with scores above 132, which they are currently doing. The program was designed to select students without requiring parents intervention. So all students with scores above 132 should be included, regardless of "local norms". Just because some parents prep their kids doesn't mean that all students are prepped - so students with scores above 132 should be in-pool, regardless of their base school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The in-pool scores changed regularly based on testing over time, there was never a set score. Local Norms are based on the top 10% of kids at a particular school, there is nothing wrong or illegal with that. It is simply saying that advanced at each school looks different.

And no student was denied services by local norms because parents can refer. They can also refer in 3rd-7th grade.

Oh please. The local norms should not have excluded kids with scores above 132, which they are currently doing. The program was designed to select students without requiring parents intervention. So all students with scores above 132 should be included, regardless of "local norms". Just because some parents prep their kids doesn't mean that all students are prepped - so students with scores above 132 should be in-pool, regardless of their base school.

Parents can refer. Even in the days of the 132 CoGAT score most of the kids who were considered where parent referred. There is nothing wrong with local norms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BVUQLV69E127/$file/Additional%20Information%20Related%20to%20the%20Use%20of%20Local%20Norm%20in%20Creating%20Level%20IV%20Screening%20Pool.pdf

Local Norms for determining in-pool cutoffs for AAP are now illegal. FCPS must comply or risk losing federal funding.

FCPS changed the policy from a universal score of 132 on cogat/NNAT testing to determine “in pool” or automatic referrals for AAP to “local norms”. This has happened to create a more racially and economically balanced number of students in the program. Students from elementary schools with higher overall intelligence are now at a disadvantage as in pool scores are now higher than being in the 99th percentile. Students from elementary schools with lower overall intelligence are at an advantage with in pool cutoff scores lowered to meet the school’s intelligence. For example certain high SES schools have in pool scores of 138 on the cogat to be considered in pool and other schools with lower SES have scores of 120 to be considered in pool.

FCPS has justified denying students in the 99th percentile of intelligence and above from being automatically considered for AAP by suggesting that having similar intellectual peers in their general education classes is the same as “Programming that has increased depth, complexity, and pace in all academic content areas.”

Is this actually true and does it apply to the current year? My child had a 132 on one of the tests but was not in pool.

The sole purpose of the change from national scores to local (elementary specific) scores has been to change the percent of students in each race and socioeconomic status to more align with FCPS population.

FCPS is closing the gap from the top down. They are hoping that this will have rippling effects for years to come. Over the years higher SES middle/high schools will have less kids prepared for more advanced coursework at earlier ages. This is just another way to make schools have “equity”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The in-pool scores changed regularly based on testing over time, there was never a set score. Local Norms are based on the top 10% of kids at a particular school, there is nothing wrong or illegal with that. It is simply saying that advanced at each school looks different.

And no student was denied services by local norms because parents can refer. They can also refer in 3rd-7th grade.

Oh please. The local norms should not have excluded kids with scores above 132, which they are currently doing. The program was designed to select students without requiring parents intervention. So all students with scores above 132 should be included, regardless of "local norms". Just because some parents prep their kids doesn't mean that all students are prepped - so students with scores above 132 should be in-pool, regardless of their base school.

I agree with this, it should be all students above 132 (or whatever the desired national norm is) and if that doesn't identify at least 10%, use local school norm for the top 10% of the school. Really no reason to be either or.

But I disagree with the assertion of the thread that local norms are now illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BVUQLV69E127/$file/Additional%20Information%20Related%20to%20the%20Use%20of%20Local%20Norm%20in%20Creating%20Level%20IV%20Screening%20Pool.pdf

Local Norms for determining in-pool cutoffs for AAP are now illegal. FCPS must comply or risk losing federal funding.

FCPS changed the policy from a universal score of 132 on cogat/NNAT testing to determine “in pool” or automatic referrals for AAP to “local norms”. This has happened to create a more racially and economically balanced number of students in the program. Students from elementary schools with higher overall intelligence are now at a disadvantage as in pool scores are now higher than being in the 99th percentile. Students from elementary schools with lower overall intelligence are at an advantage with in pool cutoff scores lowered to meet the school’s intelligence. For example certain high SES schools have in pool scores of 138 on the cogat to be considered in pool and other schools with lower SES have scores of 120 to be considered in pool.

FCPS has justified denying students in the 99th percentile of intelligence and above from being automatically considered for AAP by suggesting that having similar intellectual peers in their general education classes is the same as “Programming that has increased depth, complexity, and pace in all academic content areas.”

The sole purpose of the change from national scores to local (elementary specific) scores has been to change the percent of students in each race and socioeconomic status to more align with FCPS population.

FCPS is closing the gap from the top down. They are hoping that this will have rippling effects for years to come. Over the years higher SES middle/high schools will have less kids prepared for more advanced coursework at earlier ages. This is just another way to make schools have “equity”.

Is this actually true and does it apply to the current year? My child had a 132 on one of the tests but was not in pool.

[Anonymous]

Before the “local norms” change, students were considered “in pool” if even one section of the cogat was 132 or higher.

[Anonymous]

Who cares? A kid with a super high score who isn't in pool likely has a parent who refers. The pool is for kids whose parents have no idea what AAP is. This is a big nothing burger.

[Anonymous]

Because these people didn’t refer as they were confident their kids would be in pool now they are mad and have to wait until next year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because these people didn’t refer as they were confident their kids would be in pool now they are mad and have to wait until next year

Okay, that’s the biggest load of horse s h i t. Any parent who cares about this is dialed in and referring their child. They are completing the parent questionnaire and pulling work samples. They’re not sitting back confident that their kid is in pool and doing nothing. Besides, CogAT scores don’t come out until right about when the deadline to refer occurs.

There are ZERO parents that are mad that they missed out on sending in work samples and the questionnaire because they assumed their kid was in-pool. ZERO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because these people didn’t refer as they were confident their kids would be in pool now they are mad and have to wait until next year

It’s overconfident not to parent-refer, considering only 30% get in based on test scores while 70% are referred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because these people didn’t refer as they were confident their kids would be in pool now they are mad and have to wait until next year

That is on the parents.

In-Pool was meant to capture the kids whose parents don’t know about AAP and would not have a clue how to refer. It is meant to be the top percentage of kids in the school, hence the 10% cut off for local norms. If parents knew about AAP and thought their kid belonged in AAP then they should have been doing the work for a parental referral. They were lazy, that is about it. They can apply next year, which is what they should have done it this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because these people didn’t refer as they were confident their kids would be in pool now they are mad and have to wait until next year

Okay, that’s the biggest load of horse s h i t. Any parent who cares about this is dialed in and referring their child. They are completing the parent questionnaire and pulling work samples. They’re not sitting back confident that their kid is in pool and doing nothing. Besides, CogAT scores don’t come out until right about when the deadline to refer occurs.

There are ZERO parents that are mad that they missed out on sending in work samples and the questionnaire because they assumed their kid was in-pool. ZERO.

A lot of parents do not know the process, which is utterly opaque. All of the county is not FCPS.