Be heard about the local building norm changes to AAP Screening Pool

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, does it matter? Was anyone on this board not going to submit a parent referral? My oldest kid wasn’t in pool and got in first round, my middle kid was in pool but we needed to appeal for him to get in. So for my family this pool business is not meaningful.

This board is a fraction of the number of parents of kids who are in AAP. Anyone on this board? What sort of a measure is that?

The people who are most affected, those whose kids have CogATs above 132 and were not in pool, will apply for their child if they care about AAP. The ones who do not apply are probably comfortable with the education their kid is going to get in the Gen Ed classroom.

If they were raising the in-pool score at scores that have been underrepresented in AAP, you would have a very different situation because the parents at those schools don't know about AAP at all or don't know that they can apply for AAP.

The majority of the kids considered for AAP are done so through parent referrals and not through test scores as it is. This really only increases the number of referrals and it makes the parents of higher SES schools apply.

So yeah, I suspect that the parents most affected by this change in a negative manner are the parents who would know about the program and are in a good place to choose to apply anyway.

I don't know. We're at a "good" center as our base. My neighbors don't speak a word of English. Now it's even harder for their kids to be screened. #equity?

No system is perfect, but I'm pretty sure the number of non-English speaking parents is greater at Title I schools than it is at the "good" centers. If the family at your school is not in-pool and fails to parent-refer, they will at least have the benefit of higher-level Gen Ed classes when compared with what's available in places like Mt. Vernon.

My child is at a title 1 with high ELL numbers and didn't get an in pool email that others mentioned. One of the cogat subsections score was 132. I called the AART with a different question about the parent referral and she told me there is no pool this year and everyone needs to parent refer.

This is odd and your AART sounds uninformed. I wonder if they could have changed the policy about needing to have only one Cogat sub-section above the cut-off. Maybe now it's the composite that needs to be in-pool? I swear I saw this possibility referenced somewhere but don't recall where (maybe in the original equity report?). We are also at a Title I school but did receive an in-pool email. That said, DC's composite was over 132.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...

This is odd and your AART sounds uninformed. I wonder if they could have changed the policy about needing to have only one Cogat sub-section above the cut-off. Maybe now it's the composite that needs to be in-pool? I swear I saw this possibility referenced somewhere but don't recall where (maybe in the original equity report?). We are also at a Title I school but did receive an in-pool email. That said, DC's composite was over 132.

I thought having the composite over 132 was something that had been used in the past, and that may be where you remember it from. Brabrand's paragraph (and supporting 2 pager) did not specify which parts of which tests might be used - again the communication utterly lacking and this only in a document that was buried on BoardDocs.

I wonder if PP who was told no pool misunderstood? Our AART said when I asked about the pool in the level IV meeting that "no pool cut-off would be published."

[Anonymous]

When they screened local norms last year, they said it wouldn’t lead to a higher cutoff at schools with higher local norms. Is that no longer true this year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When they screened local norms last year, they said it wouldn’t lead to a higher cutoff at schools with higher local norms. Is that no longer true this year?

As far as can be told from reports on this board, yes. There is nothing published.

What they did last year was a pilot that lasted only for this year. Brabrand made it sound like he was just making the pilot permanent and everywhere. Then reports started coming in of scores at or over 132 but not in pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When they screened local norms last year, they said it wouldn’t lead to a higher cutoff at schools with higher local norms. Is that no longer true this year?

No one here really knows. It has not been communicated, at least not officially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When they screened local norms last year, they said it wouldn’t lead to a higher cutoff at schools with higher local norms. Is that no longer true this year?

No one here really knows. It has not been communicated, at least not officially.

OP of the thread here - that's my problem. There's been no official communication and a lot of chaos and confusion. Same thing with work samples, FWIW. Last year the SB voted to eliminate them for this year, yet there are still 2 this year?

What probably should have happened:

1. SB votes on it at a regular meeting (like they did 12/2 last year), sometime hopefully in Sept or Oct when the Brabrand Briefing went out. Maybe a short accompanying slide deck explaining change from pilot to this year.
2. Information is pushed to AARTs, who communicate clearly for parents with older kids or who already know the process what has changed. This explanation could come in the meetings and/or 2nd grade teacher newsletters.
3. FCPS News should have a short paragraph with a link to a press release explaining the change. In said press release they can pat themselves on the back as much as they like, as they usually do.
4. Description of pool per school is, at a minimum, available to families at that school. I can see why they don't want to publish it county-wide, but that would certainly be the most transparent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When they screened local norms last year, they said it wouldn’t lead to a higher cutoff at schools with higher local norms. Is that no longer true this year?

Same poster as above. I was not clear in my earlier post. What happened with the pilot was adding an alternative of local norms. They explicitly said that would not disadvantage kids by using local norms if the local norm was higher than the countywide cutoff. So the cutoff would be the countywide cutoff or a lower number, never higher. I assume the expansion of the local norms pilot means they will just allow a lower cutoff at all schools with that lower local norm but that the countywide cutoff will be the standard in the rest of the schools. Has anyone seen anything that suggest otherwise?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When they screened local norms last year, they said it wouldn’t lead to a higher cutoff at schools with higher local norms. Is that no longer true this year?

Same poster as above. I was not clear in my earlier post. What happened with the pilot was adding an alternative of local norms. They explicitly said that would not disadvantage kids by using local norms if the local norm was higher than the countywide cutoff. So the cutoff would be the countywide cutoff or a lower number, never higher. I assume the expansion of the local norms pilot means they will just allow a lower cutoff at all schools with that lower local norm but that the countywide cutoff will be the standard in the rest of the schools. Has anyone seen anything that suggest otherwise?

There have been lots of posts from people with scores over 132 who were not in-pool this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When they screened local norms last year, they said it wouldn’t lead to a higher cutoff at schools with higher local norms. Is that no longer true this year?

Same poster as above. I was not clear in my earlier post. What happened with the pilot was adding an alternative of local norms. They explicitly said that would not disadvantage kids by using local norms if the local norm was higher than the countywide cutoff. So the cutoff would be the countywide cutoff or a lower number, never higher. I assume the expansion of the local norms pilot means they will just allow a lower cutoff at all schools with that lower local norm but that the countywide cutoff will be the standard in the rest of the schools. Has anyone seen anything that suggest otherwise?

Our son scored close to 140 and we didn't get the in-pool email.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The change WAS publicized. Not our fault that you were not paying attention.

They didn't publish the fact that the cut off would be higher for high SES schools. And my question to our AART was specifically about this year's cut off for our school, which wasn't published anywhere and she chose not to answer.

[Anonymous]

Have any of you with kids with high scores and not in-pool contacted the AAP office? Someone should be explaining a deviation from the pilot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When they screened local norms last year, they said it wouldn’t lead to a higher cutoff at schools with higher local norms. Is that no longer true this year?

Same poster as above. I was not clear in my earlier post. What happened with the pilot was adding an alternative of local norms. They explicitly said that would not disadvantage kids by using local norms if the local norm was higher than the countywide cutoff. So the cutoff would be the countywide cutoff or a lower number, never higher. I assume the expansion of the local norms pilot means they will just allow a lower cutoff at all schools with that lower local norm but that the countywide cutoff will be the standard in the rest of the schools. Has anyone seen anything that suggest otherwise?

Our son scored close to 140 and we didn't get the in-pool email.

Did you contact the AART, the be AP or principal? What school?

As a parent of a kid in AAP who scored close to 140 on the NNAT and Cogat, I have a hard time believing that some schools have so many kids scoring higher than that that they've limited the pool to above that score. Until Brabrand announces that some schools have a cutoff above 140, I think there's been some miscommunication somewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you with kids with high scores and not in-pool contacted the AAP office? Someone should be explaining a deviation from the pilot.

I am asking. Will report back. Email is [e-mail]

[Anonymous]

score arrived in mail today: 136 composite.

NOT IN POOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When they screened local norms last year, they said it wouldn’t lead to a higher cutoff at schools with higher local norms. Is that no longer true this year?

Same poster as above. I was not clear in my earlier post. What happened with the pilot was adding an alternative of local norms. They explicitly said that would not disadvantage kids by using local norms if the local norm was higher than the countywide cutoff. So the cutoff would be the countywide cutoff or a lower number, never higher. I assume the expansion of the local norms pilot means they will just allow a lower cutoff at all schools with that lower local norm but that the countywide cutoff will be the standard in the rest of the schools. Has anyone seen anything that suggest otherwise?

Our son scored close to 140 and we didn't get the in-pool email.

Did you contact the AART, the be AP or principal? What school?

As a parent of a kid in AAP who scored close to 140 on the NNAT and Cogat, I have a hard time believing that some schools have so many kids scoring higher than that that they've limited the pool to above that score. Until Brabrand announces that some schools have a cutoff above 140, I think there's been some miscommunication somewhere.

Above poster here. We have and our AART confiemed that DC is not in pool. We are in one of the center schools. I am new to the neighborhood so I have no idea how the system works and how many kids in our school score over 140. If the cut off is indeed 140 my child probably missed it by one question lol. I guess it is what it is but I wish fcps had been more transparent and clearer about this.