When did they change in pool to vary per school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mark my words, FCPS will ultimately do away with the center model. They’re moving to local level IV in every elementary, that will serve the top 10% in each school.

Under the old model, almost no one from Title One schools was in-pool, which meant that smart kids with less involved parents and less enriching environments were falling through the cracks.

We used to live in a high farms neighborhood and the school didn’t have enough kids to have an AAP class. The center school pulled from like 10 elementary and the AAP center was strong.

Dragging people down from the top won’t necessarily help the people at the bottom.

What’s your research to support this? Or is this just you opining on a Saturday morning?

I don’t think it is fair to have a high cut off in a school like McLean or Oakton and let lesser kids in in Annandale or Alexandria. While it is fine to offer more spots to kids who normally would not be in pool in high FARMs school, I don’t think it is right to cut a kid in McLean with higher scores.

LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mark my words, FCPS will ultimately do away with the center model. They’re moving to local level IV in every elementary, that will serve the top 10% in each school.

Under the old model, almost no one from Title One schools was in-pool, which meant that smart kids with less involved parents and less enriching environments were falling through the cracks.

We used to live in a high farms neighborhood and the school didn’t have enough kids to have an AAP class. The center school pulled from like 10 elementary and the AAP center was strong.

Dragging people down from the top won’t necessarily help the people at the bottom.

What’s your research to support this? Or is this just you opining on a Saturday morning?

I don’t think it is fair to have a high cut off in a school like McLean or Oakton and let lesser kids in in Annandale or Alexandria. While it is fine to offer more spots to kids who normally would not be in pool in high FARMs school, I don’t think it is right to cut a kid in McLean with higher scores.

You are contradicting yourself. Should a student who is in the top tier of his school be denied acceptance for a gifted program at his school, because there are lots of students scoring higher than him at other schools in the county or the country?

[Anonymous]

When half the kids in a class score 120+ (as is often the case in high-SES schools) a kid with a 135 can still be well-served in a gen ed classroom. Classes will be taught at a higher level. Many of these schools are now using the AAP curriculum for all students anyway.

In lower-SES schools, you're more likely to have a small handful scoring in the 120s or 130s, along with significant numbers in the nineties. The top scores may not be as high, but there is actually a greater need for differentiation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When half the kids in a class score 120+ (as is often the case in high-SES schools) a kid with a 135 can still be well-served in a gen ed classroom. Classes will be taught at a higher level. Many of these schools are now using the AAP curriculum for all students anyway.

In lower-SES schools, you're more likely to have a small handful scoring in the 120s or 130s, along with significant numbers in the nineties. The top scores may not be as high, but there is actually a greater need for differentiation.

I guess privilege matters.

[Anonymous]

If you’re wearing a KN 95 or an N 95, then you’re providing some protection for yourself. If you’re wearing other kinds of masks, you’re just providing nominal protection for them. I’m not quite sure if this information is helpful or not and of course you should speak with your doctor regarding the above to confirm if it’s accurate. I am not a doctor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mark my words, FCPS will ultimately do away with the center model. They’re moving to local level IV in every elementary, that will serve the top 10% in each school.

Under the old model, almost no one from Title One schools was in-pool, which meant that smart kids with less involved parents and less enriching environments were falling through the cracks.

We used to live in a high farms neighborhood and the school didn’t have enough kids to have an AAP class. The center school pulled from like 10 elementary and the AAP center was strong.

Dragging people down from the top won’t necessarily help the people at the bottom.

What’s your research to support this? Or is this just you opining on a Saturday morning?

I don’t think it is fair to have a high cut off in a school like McLean or Oakton and let lesser kids in in Annandale or Alexandria. While it is fine to offer more spots to kids who normally would not be in pool in high FARMs school, I don’t think it is right to cut a kid in McLean with higher scores.

You are contradicting yourself. Should a student who is in the top tier of his school be denied acceptance for a gifted program at his school, because there are lots of students scoring higher than him at other schools in the county or the country?

New poster: if the curriculum is the same that was provided to most kids hitting benchmark scores but now some of those kids are denied entry merely because others scored higher, I don’t think that’s right. I know it’s a “wholistic” process to determine who is admitted, but if a kid gets a 134 on the cogat and is now denied entry when:

- the curriculum is the same as it was before this new “in pool” benchmark score

- other kids in the county with lower scores are admitted simply because they are the best at that school, but not necessarily the best in FCPS

It appears unfair. If you’re instead offering an even more advanced curriculum because now scores are higher for being “in pool,” that’s different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mark my words, FCPS will ultimately do away with the center model. They’re moving to local level IV in every elementary, that will serve the top 10% in each school.

Under the old model, almost no one from Title One schools was in-pool, which meant that smart kids with less involved parents and less enriching environments were falling through the cracks.

We used to live in a high farms neighborhood and the school didn’t have enough kids to have an AAP class. The center school pulled from like 10 elementary and the AAP center was strong.

Dragging people down from the top won’t necessarily help the people at the bottom.

What’s your research to support this? Or is this just you opining on a Saturday morning?

I don’t think it is fair to have a high cut off in a school like McLean or Oakton and let lesser kids in in Annandale or Alexandria. While it is fine to offer more spots to kids who normally would not be in pool in high FARMs school, I don’t think it is right to cut a kid in McLean with higher scores.

You are contradicting yourself. Should a student who is in the top tier of his school be denied acceptance for a gifted program at his school, because there are lots of students scoring higher than him at other schools in the county or the country?

New poster: if the curriculum is the same that was provided to most kids hitting benchmark scores but now some of those kids are denied entry merely because others scored higher, I don’t think that’s right. I know it’s a “wholistic” process to determine who is admitted, but if a kid gets a 134 on the cogat and is now denied entry when:

- the curriculum is the same as it was before this new “in pool” benchmark score

- other kids in the county with lower scores are admitted simply because they are the best at that school, but not necessarily the best in FCPS

It appears unfair. If you’re instead offering an even more advanced curriculum because now scores are higher for being “in pool,” that’s different.

They’re also denying accelerated math to kids who need it. That’s a problem w this new process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mark my words, FCPS will ultimately do away with the center model. They’re moving to local level IV in every elementary, that will serve the top 10% in each school.

Under the old model, almost no one from Title One schools was in-pool, which meant that smart kids with less involved parents and less enriching environments were falling through the cracks.

We used to live in a high farms neighborhood and the school didn’t have enough kids to have an AAP class. The center school pulled from like 10 elementary and the AAP center was strong.

Dragging people down from the top won’t necessarily help the people at the bottom.

What’s your research to support this? Or is this just you opining on a Saturday morning?

I don’t think it is fair to have a high cut off in a school like McLean or Oakton and let lesser kids in in Annandale or Alexandria. While it is fine to offer more spots to kids who normally would not be in pool in high FARMs school, I don’t think it is right to cut a kid in McLean with higher scores.

You are contradicting yourself. Should a student who is in the top tier of his school be denied acceptance for a gifted program at his school, because there are lots of students scoring higher than him at other schools in the county or the country?

New poster: if the curriculum is the same that was provided to most kids hitting benchmark scores but now some of those kids are denied entry merely because others scored higher, I don’t think that’s right. I know it’s a “wholistic” process to determine who is admitted, but if a kid gets a 134 on the cogat and is now denied entry when:

- the curriculum is the same as it was before this new “in pool” benchmark score

- other kids in the county with lower scores are admitted simply because they are the best at that school, but not necessarily the best in FCPS

It appears unfair. If you’re instead offering an even more advanced curriculum because now scores are higher for being “in pool,” that’s different.

Exactly. At one point they said that no school would have a cutoff higher than 132, but it seems that now they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mark my words, FCPS will ultimately do away with the center model. They’re moving to local level IV in every elementary, that will serve the top 10% in each school.

Under the old model, almost no one from Title One schools was in-pool, which meant that smart kids with less involved parents and less enriching environments were falling through the cracks.

We used to live in a high farms neighborhood and the school didn’t have enough kids to have an AAP class. The center school pulled from like 10 elementary and the AAP center was strong.

Dragging people down from the top won’t necessarily help the people at the bottom.

What’s your research to support this? Or is this just you opining on a Saturday morning?

I don’t think it is fair to have a high cut off in a school like McLean or Oakton and let lesser kids in in Annandale or Alexandria. While it is fine to offer more spots to kids who normally would not be in pool in high FARMs school, I don’t think it is right to cut a kid in McLean with higher scores.

You are contradicting yourself. Should a student who is in the top tier of his school be denied acceptance for a gifted program at his school, because there are lots of students scoring higher than him at other schools in the county or the country?

New poster: if the curriculum is the same that was provided to most kids hitting benchmark scores but now some of those kids are denied entry merely because others scored higher, I don’t think that’s right. I know it’s a “wholistic” process to determine who is admitted, but if a kid gets a 134 on the cogat and is now denied entry when:

- the curriculum is the same as it was before this new “in pool” benchmark score

- other kids in the county with lower scores are admitted simply because they are the best at that school, but not necessarily the best in FCPS

It appears unfair. If you’re instead offering an even more advanced curriculum because now scores are higher for being “in pool,” that’s different.

They’re also denying accelerated math to kids who need it. That’s a problem w this new process.

Says who? Is this some sort of policy? There are tons of kids in our school who are Level III and get accelerated (i.e. Level IV) math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mark my words, FCPS will ultimately do away with the center model. They’re moving to local level IV in every elementary, that will serve the top 10% in each school.

Under the old model, almost no one from Title One schools was in-pool, which meant that smart kids with less involved parents and less enriching environments were falling through the cracks.

We used to live in a high farms neighborhood and the school didn’t have enough kids to have an AAP class. The center school pulled from like 10 elementary and the AAP center was strong.

Dragging people down from the top won’t necessarily help the people at the bottom.

What’s your research to support this? Or is this just you opining on a Saturday morning?

I don’t think it is fair to have a high cut off in a school like McLean or Oakton and let lesser kids in in Annandale or Alexandria. While it is fine to offer more spots to kids who normally would not be in pool in high FARMs school, I don’t think it is right to cut a kid in McLean with higher scores.

You are contradicting yourself. Should a student who is in the top tier of his school be denied acceptance for a gifted program at his school, because there are lots of students scoring higher than him at other schools in the county or the country?

New poster: if the curriculum is the same that was provided to most kids hitting benchmark scores but now some of those kids are denied entry merely because others scored higher, I don’t think that’s right. I know it’s a “wholistic” process to determine who is admitted, but if a kid gets a 134 on the cogat and is now denied entry when:

- the curriculum is the same as it was before this new “in pool” benchmark score

- other kids in the county with lower scores are admitted simply because they are the best at that school, but not necessarily the best in FCPS

It appears unfair. If you’re instead offering an even more advanced curriculum because now scores are higher for being “in pool,” that’s different.

They’re also denying accelerated math to kids who need it. That’s a problem w this new process.

Says who? Is this some sort of policy? There are tons of kids in our school who are Level III and get accelerated (i.e. Level IV) math.

Really? Do tell how often they are receiving accelerated math! At our Vienna elem school, level 3 pull outs are once a week only and:

- it’s a different core class each quarter - meaning one quarter of accelerated math before the next core subject begins

- any school holiday weeks (even one day), typically means the kids miss their one day a week of one hour of level 3 instruction. Same during the weeks the local committee meets and discusses the applications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mark my words, FCPS will ultimately do away with the center model. They’re moving to local level IV in every elementary, that will serve the top 10% in each school.

Under the old model, almost no one from Title One schools was in-pool, which meant that smart kids with less involved parents and less enriching environments were falling through the cracks.

We used to live in a high farms neighborhood and the school didn’t have enough kids to have an AAP class. The center school pulled from like 10 elementary and the AAP center was strong.

Dragging people down from the top won’t necessarily help the people at the bottom.

What’s your research to support this? Or is this just you opining on a Saturday morning?

I don’t think it is fair to have a high cut off in a school like McLean or Oakton and let lesser kids in in Annandale or Alexandria. While it is fine to offer more spots to kids who normally would not be in pool in high FARMs school, I don’t think it is right to cut a kid in McLean with higher scores.

You are contradicting yourself. Should a student who is in the top tier of his school be denied acceptance for a gifted program at his school, because there are lots of students scoring higher than him at other schools in the county or the country?

New poster: if the curriculum is the same that was provided to most kids hitting benchmark scores but now some of those kids are denied entry merely because others scored higher, I don’t think that’s right. I know it’s a “wholistic” process to determine who is admitted, but if a kid gets a 134 on the cogat and is now denied entry when:

- the curriculum is the same as it was before this new “in pool” benchmark score

- other kids in the county with lower scores are admitted simply because they are the best at that school, but not necessarily the best in FCPS

It appears unfair. If you’re instead offering an even more advanced curriculum because now scores are higher for being “in pool,” that’s different.

They’re also denying accelerated math to kids who need it. That’s a problem w this new process.

Says who? Is this some sort of policy? There are tons of kids in our school who are Level III and get accelerated (i.e. Level IV) math.

Really? Do tell how often they are receiving accelerated math! At our Vienna elem school, level 3 pull outs are once a week only and:

- it’s a different core class each quarter - meaning one quarter of accelerated math before the next core subject begins

- any school holiday weeks (even one day), typically means the kids miss their one day a week of one hour of level 3 instruction. Same during the weeks the local committee meets and discusses the applications.

All schools are like this these days. If your child is even a little advanced, they mostly get warehoused until they're older when they can select differentiated classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mark my words, FCPS will ultimately do away with the center model. They’re moving to local level IV in every elementary, that will serve the top 10% in each school.

Under the old model, almost no one from Title One schools was in-pool, which meant that smart kids with less involved parents and less enriching environments were falling through the cracks.

We used to live in a high farms neighborhood and the school didn’t have enough kids to have an AAP class. The center school pulled from like 10 elementary and the AAP center was strong.

Dragging people down from the top won’t necessarily help the people at the bottom.

What’s your research to support this? Or is this just you opining on a Saturday morning?

I don’t think it is fair to have a high cut off in a school like McLean or Oakton and let lesser kids in in Annandale or Alexandria. While it is fine to offer more spots to kids who normally would not be in pool in high FARMs school, I don’t think it is right to cut a kid in McLean with higher scores.

You are contradicting yourself. Should a student who is in the top tier of his school be denied acceptance for a gifted program at his school, because there are lots of students scoring higher than him at other schools in the county or the country?

New poster: if the curriculum is the same that was provided to most kids hitting benchmark scores but now some of those kids are denied entry merely because others scored higher, I don’t think that’s right. I know it’s a “wholistic” process to determine who is admitted, but if a kid gets a 134 on the cogat and is now denied entry when:

- the curriculum is the same as it was before this new “in pool” benchmark score

- other kids in the county with lower scores are admitted simply because they are the best at that school, but not necessarily the best in FCPS

It appears unfair. If you’re instead offering an even more advanced curriculum because now scores are higher for being “in pool,” that’s different.

They’re also denying accelerated math to kids who need it. That’s a problem w this new process.

Says who? Is this some sort of policy? There are tons of kids in our school who are Level III and get accelerated (i.e. Level IV) math.

Really? Do tell how often they are receiving accelerated math! At our Vienna elem school, level 3 pull outs are once a week only and:

- it’s a different core class each quarter - meaning one quarter of accelerated math before the next core subject begins

- any school holiday weeks (even one day), typically means the kids miss their one day a week of one hour of level 3 instruction. Same during the weeks the local committee meets and discusses the applications.

They aren't exactly pull-outs. There's just a good-sized group of level III students who leave their regular class and go to math every day with the local level IV kids. Then they go back to their regular teacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mark my words, FCPS will ultimately do away with the center model. They’re moving to local level IV in every elementary, that will serve the top 10% in each school.

Under the old model, almost no one from Title One schools was in-pool, which meant that smart kids with less involved parents and less enriching environments were falling through the cracks.

We used to live in a high farms neighborhood and the school didn’t have enough kids to have an AAP class. The center school pulled from like 10 elementary and the AAP center was strong.

Dragging people down from the top won’t necessarily help the people at the bottom.

What’s your research to support this? Or is this just you opining on a Saturday morning?

I don’t think it is fair to have a high cut off in a school like McLean or Oakton and let lesser kids in in Annandale or Alexandria. While it is fine to offer more spots to kids who normally would not be in pool in high FARMs school, I don’t think it is right to cut a kid in McLean with higher scores.

You are contradicting yourself. Should a student who is in the top tier of his school be denied acceptance for a gifted program at his school, because there are lots of students scoring higher than him at other schools in the county or the country?

New poster: if the curriculum is the same that was provided to most kids hitting benchmark scores but now some of those kids are denied entry merely because others scored higher, I don’t think that’s right. I know it’s a “wholistic” process to determine who is admitted, but if a kid gets a 134 on the cogat and is now denied entry when:

- the curriculum is the same as it was before this new “in pool” benchmark score

- other kids in the county with lower scores are admitted simply because they are the best at that school, but not necessarily the best in FCPS

It appears unfair. If you’re instead offering an even more advanced curriculum because now scores are higher for being “in pool,” that’s different.

They’re also denying accelerated math to kids who need it. That’s a problem w this new process.

Says who? Is this some sort of policy? There are tons of kids in our school who are Level III and get accelerated (i.e. Level IV) math.

Really? Do tell how often they are receiving accelerated math! At our Vienna elem school, level 3 pull outs are once a week only and:

- it’s a different core class each quarter - meaning one quarter of accelerated math before the next core subject begins

- any school holiday weeks (even one day), typically means the kids miss their one day a week of one hour of level 3 instruction. Same during the weeks the local committee meets and discusses the applications.

Advanced Math is different then Level III. Advanced Math is their daily math, it is not a pull out. Kids who are in Advanced Math have a different lesson plan then Gen Ed math. DS has been in Advanced Math since 3rd grade, they have different work sheets and tests and the like.

Level III is a once a week pull out that is not graded and focused more on creative thinking and going deeper into some topics. It has nothing to do with Math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mark my words, FCPS will ultimately do away with the center model. They’re moving to local level IV in every elementary, that will serve the top 10% in each school.

Under the old model, almost no one from Title One schools was in-pool, which meant that smart kids with less involved parents and less enriching environments were falling through the cracks.

We used to live in a high farms neighborhood and the school didn’t have enough kids to have an AAP class. The center school pulled from like 10 elementary and the AAP center was strong.

Dragging people down from the top won’t necessarily help the people at the bottom.

What’s your research to support this? Or is this just you opining on a Saturday morning?

I don’t think it is fair to have a high cut off in a school like McLean or Oakton and let lesser kids in in Annandale or Alexandria. While it is fine to offer more spots to kids who normally would not be in pool in high FARMs school, I don’t think it is right to cut a kid in McLean with higher scores.

You are contradicting yourself. Should a student who is in the top tier of his school be denied acceptance for a gifted program at his school, because there are lots of students scoring higher than him at other schools in the county or the country?

New poster: if the curriculum is the same that was provided to most kids hitting benchmark scores but now some of those kids are denied entry merely because others scored higher, I don’t think that’s right. I know it’s a “wholistic” process to determine who is admitted, but if a kid gets a 134 on the cogat and is now denied entry when:

- the curriculum is the same as it was before this new “in pool” benchmark score

- other kids in the county with lower scores are admitted simply because they are the best at that school, but not necessarily the best in FCPS

It appears unfair. If you’re instead offering an even more advanced curriculum because now scores are higher for being “in pool,” that’s different.

They’re also denying accelerated math to kids who need it. That’s a problem w this new process.

It is difficult for me to roll my eyes harder at this post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mark my words, FCPS will ultimately do away with the center model. They’re moving to local level IV in every elementary, that will serve the top 10% in each school.

Under the old model, almost no one from Title One schools was in-pool, which meant that smart kids with less involved parents and less enriching environments were falling through the cracks.

We used to live in a high farms neighborhood and the school didn’t have enough kids to have an AAP class. The center school pulled from like 10 elementary and the AAP center was strong.

Dragging people down from the top won’t necessarily help the people at the bottom.

What’s your research to support this? Or is this just you opining on a Saturday morning?

I don’t think it is fair to have a high cut off in a school like McLean or Oakton and let lesser kids in in Annandale or Alexandria. While it is fine to offer more spots to kids who normally would not be in pool in high FARMs school, I don’t think it is right to cut a kid in McLean with higher scores.

You are contradicting yourself. Should a student who is in the top tier of his school be denied acceptance for a gifted program at his school, because there are lots of students scoring higher than him at other schools in the county or the country?

New poster: if the curriculum is the same that was provided to most kids hitting benchmark scores but now some of those kids are denied entry merely because others scored higher, I don’t think that’s right. I know it’s a “wholistic” process to determine who is admitted, but if a kid gets a 134 on the cogat and is now denied entry when:

- the curriculum is the same as it was before this new “in pool” benchmark score

- other kids in the county with lower scores are admitted simply because they are the best at that school, but not necessarily the best in FCPS

It appears unfair. If you’re instead offering an even more advanced curriculum because now scores are higher for being “in pool,” that’s different.

They’re also denying accelerated math to kids who need it. That’s a problem w this new process.

It is difficult for me to roll my eyes harder at this post.

I get it. DS is in Advanced Math and is still not challenged. He is doing 6th grade math in 5th grade. He would be bored to tears in Gen Ed math.

The Poster is wrong in that Advanced Math has nothing to do with Level III pull outs, they are totally different programs. I know some schools don’t start Advanced Math until 5th grade while others start in 3rd grade. Kids in LIV are guaranteed Advanced Math which is one reason why parents push for LIV.