Will in pool letters come before Dec 15?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To capture the greatest number of kids, the top 10% is defined as an "either/or", not as an "and". So if your kid was 10% on NNAT but not on COGAT, your kid will be in pool. Or if your kid was top 10% in COGAT but not NNAT, kid is still referred. Kids that are 10% in both are also captured in this manner.

I don't think this is correct. I think the pool is 10% of the 2nd grade class for each school.

The central committee is the same, though. They are supposedly comparing all student packets, in pool and referred, to each other. It has always been debate whether or not the central committee keeps the school in mind when making their decision.

Top 10% "in 2nd grade" means you're looking at both NNAT and COGAT and not just COGAT. The Universal Screener language (posted by someone else) clearly notes that both NNAT and COGAT are considered. NNAT from 1st grade and COGAT for 2nd grade. The 10% is inclusive of both tests and they use "either/or" for the threshold of top 10%. That's how it works.

The kids who are in pool are automatically properly screened by Central. The kids who are parent-referred go through a couple of other threshold criteria markers before getting fully screened. (Not publicly advertised.) The capacity at the school is absolutely considered, as with any program with the level of popularity that exists with LIV. That's just planning. AARTs give off a lot of *talking points* information they don't fully understand. <-- This is how it works!

Huh? Where do you get this information, because it flatly contradicts what I've heard over doing this 3 times, with 3 kids admitted, only 1 who was in-pool.

- By "central" do you mean the Central Office or the central screening committee? The AAP Central Office doesn't do the screening. Instead group of 6 teachers from every single elementary school and some middle schools in FCPS are the "central screening committee" and they do the screening. 4 of them say yes and your kid is in. Less than 4 and your kid is not. The Central Office's role in the central screening committee is training and organization.
- AARTs aren't giving uniformed "talking points." The are integral parts of the central screening committee every year and absolutely know how this process works.
- I have no idea what kind of "other threshhold criteria markers before getting fully screened" would even mean. If you are implying, like it sounds like, that parent referred kids don't get to go before the central selection committee unless they meet some other threshholds, FCPS's own website on the screening process flatly contradicts this. It states "Having a Grade 2 universal screener referral does not mean the student has an advantage or is screened differently." Plus what about school/teacher referred kids?

I think you are making junk up that is patently false to rile people up. Honestly the worst kind of trolling - just being mean for the sake of your own amusement.

Anyone who really wants to know how the process works can watch FCPS's own presentations on it, if you didn't go when your AART gave the level IV presentation. Very helpful stuff here. https://www.fcps.edu/academics/academic-overview/advanced-academic-programs#presentations-learn-about-advanced-academic-programs-and-services

Because everything FCPS puts on its website is patently true! Ok... since you had 3 kids going through this, you must know how it's run. Thank you!

I provided sources for my statements. You have not. What little birdie told you that parent referred kids had extra hoops to jump through?

Kirsten Maloney

And who are you, PP, that you have chats with the senior manager of AAP for FCPS?

Someone who is well-informed on the AAP process nuances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To capture the greatest number of kids, the top 10% is defined as an "either/or", not as an "and". So if your kid was 10% on NNAT but not on COGAT, your kid will be in pool. Or if your kid was top 10% in COGAT but not NNAT, kid is still referred. Kids that are 10% in both are also captured in this manner.

I don't think this is correct. I think the pool is 10% of the 2nd grade class for each school.

The central committee is the same, though. They are supposedly comparing all student packets, in pool and referred, to each other. It has always been debate whether or not the central committee keeps the school in mind when making their decision.

Top 10% "in 2nd grade" means you're looking at both NNAT and COGAT and not just COGAT. The Universal Screener language (posted by someone else) clearly notes that both NNAT and COGAT are considered. NNAT from 1st grade and COGAT for 2nd grade. The 10% is inclusive of both tests and they use "either/or" for the threshold of top 10%. That's how it works.

The kids who are in pool are automatically properly screened by Central. The kids who are parent-referred go through a couple of other threshold criteria markers before getting fully screened. (Not publicly advertised.) The capacity at the school is absolutely considered, as with any program with the level of popularity that exists with LIV. That's just planning. AARTs give off a lot of *talking points* information they don't fully understand. <-- This is how it works!

Huh? Where do you get this information, because it flatly contradicts what I've heard over doing this 3 times, with 3 kids admitted, only 1 who was in-pool.

- By "central" do you mean the Central Office or the central screening committee? The AAP Central Office doesn't do the screening. Instead group of 6 teachers from every single elementary school and some middle schools in FCPS are the "central screening committee" and they do the screening. 4 of them say yes and your kid is in. Less than 4 and your kid is not. The Central Office's role in the central screening committee is training and organization.
- AARTs aren't giving uniformed "talking points." The are integral parts of the central screening committee every year and absolutely know how this process works.
- I have no idea what kind of "other threshhold criteria markers before getting fully screened" would even mean. If you are implying, like it sounds like, that parent referred kids don't get to go before the central selection committee unless they meet some other threshholds, FCPS's own website on the screening process flatly contradicts this. It states "Having a Grade 2 universal screener referral does not mean the student has an advantage or is screened differently." Plus what about school/teacher referred kids?

I think you are making junk up that is patently false to rile people up. Honestly the worst kind of trolling - just being mean for the sake of your own amusement.

Anyone who really wants to know how the process works can watch FCPS's own presentations on it, if you didn't go when your AART gave the level IV presentation. Very helpful stuff here. https://www.fcps.edu/academics/academic-overview/advanced-academic-programs#presentations-learn-about-advanced-academic-programs-and-services

Because everything FCPS puts on its website is patently true! Ok... since you had 3 kids going through this, you must know how it's run. Thank you!

I provided sources for my statements. You have not. What little birdie told you that parent referred kids had extra hoops to jump through?

Kirsten Maloney

And who are you, PP, that you have chats with the senior manager of AAP for FCPS?

Someone who is well-informed on the AAP process nuances.

If FCPS is not actually screening with the central screening committee every single packet (and/or is not preparing a completed packet for every referral pathway), they are open to a whole heckuva lot of lawsuits for lying through their teeth. Which is why I still call troll. The 2020 report you provided didn't actually say what you said is "how it actually worked," it merely provided data on how many kids are screened and what percentage used to come from what referral pathway.

[Anonymous]

FWIW Virginia law requires:

"Identification" means the multistaged process of finding students who are eligible for service options offered through the division's gifted education program. The identification process begins with a divisionwide screening component that is followed by a referral component, and that concludes with the determination of eligibility by the school division's identification and placement committee or committees. The identification process includes the review of valid and reliable student data based on criteria established and applied consistently by the school division. The process shall include the review of information or data from multiple sources to determine whether a student's aptitudes and learning needs are most appropriately served through the school division's gifted education program.

(https://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title8/agency20/chapter40/section20/)

I really don't see how they could claim that one referral pathway getting preference over the others is "consistent."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To capture the greatest number of kids, the top 10% is defined as an "either/or", not as an "and". So if your kid was 10% on NNAT but not on COGAT, your kid will be in pool. Or if your kid was top 10% in COGAT but not NNAT, kid is still referred. Kids that are 10% in both are also captured in this manner.

I don't think this is correct. I think the pool is 10% of the 2nd grade class for each school.

The central committee is the same, though. They are supposedly comparing all student packets, in pool and referred, to each other. It has always been debate whether or not the central committee keeps the school in mind when making their decision.

Top 10% "in 2nd grade" means you're looking at both NNAT and COGAT and not just COGAT. The Universal Screener language (posted by someone else) clearly notes that both NNAT and COGAT are considered. NNAT from 1st grade and COGAT for 2nd grade. The 10% is inclusive of both tests and they use "either/or" for the threshold of top 10%. That's how it works.

The kids who are in pool are automatically properly screened by Central. The kids who are parent-referred go through a couple of other threshold criteria markers before getting fully screened. (Not publicly advertised.) The capacity at the school is absolutely considered, as with any program with the level of popularity that exists with LIV. That's just planning. AARTs give off a lot of *talking points* information they don't fully understand. <-- This is how it works!

Huh? Where do you get this information, because it flatly contradicts what I've heard over doing this 3 times, with 3 kids admitted, only 1 who was in-pool.

- By "central" do you mean the Central Office or the central screening committee? The AAP Central Office doesn't do the screening. Instead group of 6 teachers from every single elementary school and some middle schools in FCPS are the "central screening committee" and they do the screening. 4 of them say yes and your kid is in. Less than 4 and your kid is not. The Central Office's role in the central screening committee is training and organization.
- AARTs aren't giving uniformed "talking points." The are integral parts of the central screening committee every year and absolutely know how this process works.
- I have no idea what kind of "other threshhold criteria markers before getting fully screened" would even mean. If you are implying, like it sounds like, that parent referred kids don't get to go before the central selection committee unless they meet some other threshholds, FCPS's own website on the screening process flatly contradicts this. It states "Having a Grade 2 universal screener referral does not mean the student has an advantage or is screened differently." Plus what about school/teacher referred kids?

I think you are making junk up that is patently false to rile people up. Honestly the worst kind of trolling - just being mean for the sake of your own amusement.

Anyone who really wants to know how the process works can watch FCPS's own presentations on it, if you didn't go when your AART gave the level IV presentation. Very helpful stuff here. https://www.fcps.edu/academics/academic-overview/advanced-academic-programs#presentations-learn-about-advanced-academic-programs-and-services

Because everything FCPS puts on its website is patently true! Ok... since you had 3 kids going through this, you must know how it's run. Thank you!

I provided sources for my statements. You have not. What little birdie told you that parent referred kids had extra hoops to jump through?

Kirsten Maloney

And who are you, PP, that you have chats with the senior manager of AAP for FCPS?

Someone who is well-informed on the AAP process nuances.

If FCPS is not actually screening with the central screening committee every single packet (and/or is not preparing a completed packet for every referral pathway), they are open to a whole heckuva lot of lawsuits for lying through their teeth. Which is why I still call troll. The 2020 report you provided didn't actually say what you said is "how it actually worked," it merely provided data on how many kids are screened and what percentage used to come from what referral pathway.

Good job! Now take the next step and align the # screened to the % of referral pathway and you'll find the gap. That gap is what we are talking about today! Almost there ...

As for a whole heckuva lot of lawsuits, when we look at it in a "holistic" manner, there is a lot of room left for interpretation. That's why you will always find that term ("talking point") used by every single AART. No where on their website do they say that every child who applied, either through parent referral or other pathways, are screened. You're the one making that assumption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FWIW Virginia law requires:

"Identification" means the multistaged process of finding students who are eligible for service options offered through the division's gifted education program. The identification process begins with a divisionwide screening component that is followed by a referral component, and that concludes with the determination of eligibility by the school division's identification and placement committee or committees. The identification process includes the review of valid and reliable student data based on criteria established and applied consistently by the school division. The process shall include the review of information or data from multiple sources to determine whether a student's aptitudes and learning needs are most appropriately served through the school division's gifted education program.

(https://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title8/agency20/chapter40/section20/)

I really don't see how they could claim that one referral pathway getting preference over the others is "consistent."

Here's an example on how "consistently" is applied: FCPS establishes that LIV AAP is open to 20% of student body. FCPS derives the total population of students in 2nd grade using the 20% marker. FCPS uses a criteria threshold (e.g., >128 composite VQN) to gauge whether the 20% total population grabs all students who are above the 128 VQN. If so, those files are set aside for full screening. If there are more or less students who score above or below the 128, you goal seek the VQN to get to the 20% population number. Those kids who score above are set aside for full screening. <-- Consistent.

(Before everyone jumps on those numbers, it's only an example. What do I know!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To capture the greatest number of kids, the top 10% is defined as an "either/or", not as an "and". So if your kid was 10% on NNAT but not on COGAT, your kid will be in pool. Or if your kid was top 10% in COGAT but not NNAT, kid is still referred. Kids that are 10% in both are also captured in this manner.

I don't think this is correct. I think the pool is 10% of the 2nd grade class for each school.

The central committee is the same, though. They are supposedly comparing all student packets, in pool and referred, to each other. It has always been debate whether or not the central committee keeps the school in mind when making their decision.

Top 10% "in 2nd grade" means you're looking at both NNAT and COGAT and not just COGAT. The Universal Screener language (posted by someone else) clearly notes that both NNAT and COGAT are considered. NNAT from 1st grade and COGAT for 2nd grade. The 10% is inclusive of both tests and they use "either/or" for the threshold of top 10%. That's how it works.

The kids who are in pool are automatically properly screened by Central. The kids who are parent-referred go through a couple of other threshold criteria markers before getting fully screened. (Not publicly advertised.) The capacity at the school is absolutely considered, as with any program with the level of popularity that exists with LIV. That's just planning. AARTs give off a lot of *talking points* information they don't fully understand. <-- This is how it works!

Huh? Where do you get this information, because it flatly contradicts what I've heard over doing this 3 times, with 3 kids admitted, only 1 who was in-pool.

- By "central" do you mean the Central Office or the central screening committee? The AAP Central Office doesn't do the screening. Instead group of 6 teachers from every single elementary school and some middle schools in FCPS are the "central screening committee" and they do the screening. 4 of them say yes and your kid is in. Less than 4 and your kid is not. The Central Office's role in the central screening committee is training and organization.
- AARTs aren't giving uniformed "talking points." The are integral parts of the central screening committee every year and absolutely know how this process works.
- I have no idea what kind of "other threshhold criteria markers before getting fully screened" would even mean. If you are implying, like it sounds like, that parent referred kids don't get to go before the central selection committee unless they meet some other threshholds, FCPS's own website on the screening process flatly contradicts this. It states "Having a Grade 2 universal screener referral does not mean the student has an advantage or is screened differently." Plus what about school/teacher referred kids?

I think you are making junk up that is patently false to rile people up. Honestly the worst kind of trolling - just being mean for the sake of your own amusement.

Anyone who really wants to know how the process works can watch FCPS's own presentations on it, if you didn't go when your AART gave the level IV presentation. Very helpful stuff here. https://www.fcps.edu/academics/academic-overview/advanced-academic-programs#presentations-learn-about-advanced-academic-programs-and-services

Because everything FCPS puts on its website is patently true! Ok... since you had 3 kids going through this, you must know how it's run. Thank you!

I provided sources for my statements. You have not. What little birdie told you that parent referred kids had extra hoops to jump through?

Kirsten Maloney

And who are you, PP, that you have chats with the senior manager of AAP for FCPS?

Someone who is well-informed on the AAP process nuances.

If FCPS is not actually screening with the central screening committee every single packet (and/or is not preparing a completed packet for every referral pathway), they are open to a whole heckuva lot of lawsuits for lying through their teeth. Which is why I still call troll. The 2020 report you provided didn't actually say what you said is "how it actually worked," it merely provided data on how many kids are screened and what percentage used to come from what referral pathway.

Good job! Now take the next step and align the # screened to the % of referral pathway and you'll find the gap. That gap is what we are talking about today! Almost there ...

As for a whole heckuva lot of lawsuits, when we look at it in a "holistic" manner, there is a lot of room left for interpretation. That's why you will always find that term ("talking point") used by every single AART. No where on their website do they say that every child who applied, either through parent referral or other pathways, are screened. You're the one making that assumption.

Table 11 is "Students Referred for Level IV Consideration" and the spring 2019 year is 4613 which is going to include 3rd through 7th graders. Table 10 is "Central Selection Cycles - AAP Screening," also referring to all kids. Table 9, on the other hand, is "Pathways to Level IV Consideration: 2018 – 2019 Grade 2 Cohort"

Which ones am I supposed to be looking to find a consistent set of numbers that shows a gap between screened files and referred files for just the grade 2 cohort to see your supposed gap? What I see are more students listed as screened than referred plus the grade 2 pool, probably because students screened includes the fall screening period while table 11 only refers to spring. I'm guessing the extra 229 kids screened in 18-19 are the fall screened kids.

And none of that adds up to a parent, teacher, or self referred kid at any age being not screened.

[Anonymous]

It doesn’t really matter what the PP says about the AAP process nuances and whether it’s true. For parents who have gone through the AAP process for their kids, we ALL know that the process is as opaque as it can possibly be for a public school district. That alone should be the only factors parents should care about. You can’t even get a straight answer from your AART on why a kid was denied, other than it’s a “holistic” review. But which parent is going to take on FCPS for that fight?

[Anonymous]

Hello all…. From someone who has gone through the process. The in-pool means nothing. My child was in pool, had a 99th percentile on the WISC and great Cogat scores. He didn’t get in until 4th grade and that too… on appeal. There was nothing in that packet that should have been denied over and over.

Also, his buddy again… brilliant kid, great test scores behavior etc…. Got in for 7th grade. So keep trying if it doesn’t work. It’s the craziest process and there is no definite answer. I will tell you this. It DOES matter which school you attend. Center Schools in expensive neighborhoods are MUCH harder to get into because rich parents pay for a lot of enrichment and prep.

Local schools can also get in through principal placement (Level IV… not centrally placed) whereas center schools can’t. Who ever says there is no difference is lying. Depends on where you live and which school it is….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hello all…. From someone who has gone through the process. The in-pool means nothing. My child was in pool, had a 99th percentile on the WISC and great Cogat scores. He didn’t get in until 4th grade and that too… on appeal. There was nothing in that packet that should have been denied over and over.

Also, his buddy again… brilliant kid, great test scores behavior etc…. Got in for 7th grade. So keep trying if it doesn’t work. It’s the craziest process and there is no definite answer. I will tell you this. It DOES matter which school you attend. Center Schools in expensive neighborhoods are MUCH harder to get into because rich parents pay for a lot of enrichment and prep.

Local schools can also get in through principal placement (Level IV… not centrally placed) whereas center schools can’t. Who ever says there is no difference is lying. Depends on where you live and which school it is….

Center school parent here with our base being the center, and center schools started doing principal placement at some point. I know multiple kids - some who never applied for full-time AAP - who were principal placed (some into my own kids classes) in 4th at our center. The parents told me it was principal placement and one voluntarily dropped out after a year of it.

It's a numbers game. If principals don't have numbers to fill out advanced classes and need to retain teachers as AAP teachers for whatever reason, they can principal place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t really matter what the PP says about the AAP process nuances and whether it’s true. For parents who have gone through the AAP process for their kids, we ALL know that the process is as opaque as it can possibly be for a public school district. That alone should be the only factors parents should care about. You can’t even get a straight answer from your AART on why a kid was denied, other than it’s a “holistic” review. But which parent is going to take on FCPS for that fight?

I posted about my kid who got rejected many years ago and rejected with top scores, grades and GBRS. The work submitted by the school included a math worksheet that was not only unimpressive and exactly the type of work the AART told us NOT to include, but it had an error in it. I’m really not sure why it was part of my child’s AAP packet.

He was rejected and in on appeal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To capture the greatest number of kids, the top 10% is defined as an "either/or", not as an "and". So if your kid was 10% on NNAT but not on COGAT, your kid will be in pool. Or if your kid was top 10% in COGAT but not NNAT, kid is still referred. Kids that are 10% in both are also captured in this manner.

I don't think this is correct. I think the pool is 10% of the 2nd grade class for each school.

The central committee is the same, though. They are supposedly comparing all student packets, in pool and referred, to each other. It has always been debate whether or not the central committee keeps the school in mind when making their decision.

Top 10% "in 2nd grade" means you're looking at both NNAT and COGAT and not just COGAT. The Universal Screener language (posted by someone else) clearly notes that both NNAT and COGAT are considered. NNAT from 1st grade and COGAT for 2nd grade. The 10% is inclusive of both tests and they use "either/or" for the threshold of top 10%. That's how it works.

The kids who are in pool are automatically properly screened by Central. The kids who are parent-referred go through a couple of other threshold criteria markers before getting fully screened. (Not publicly advertised.) The capacity at the school is absolutely considered, as with any program with the level of popularity that exists with LIV. That's just planning. AARTs give off a lot of *talking points* information they don't fully understand. <-- This is how it works!

Huh? Where do you get this information, because it flatly contradicts what I've heard over doing this 3 times, with 3 kids admitted, only 1 who was in-pool.

- By "central" do you mean the Central Office or the central screening committee? The AAP Central Office doesn't do the screening. Instead group of 6 teachers from every single elementary school and some middle schools in FCPS are the "central screening committee" and they do the screening. 4 of them say yes and your kid is in. Less than 4 and your kid is not. The Central Office's role in the central screening committee is training and organization.
- AARTs aren't giving uniformed "talking points." The are integral parts of the central screening committee every year and absolutely know how this process works.
- I have no idea what kind of "other threshhold criteria markers before getting fully screened" would even mean. If you are implying, like it sounds like, that parent referred kids don't get to go before the central selection committee unless they meet some other threshholds, FCPS's own website on the screening process flatly contradicts this. It states "Having a Grade 2 universal screener referral does not mean the student has an advantage or is screened differently." Plus what about school/teacher referred kids?

I think you are making junk up that is patently false to rile people up. Honestly the worst kind of trolling - just being mean for the sake of your own amusement.

Anyone who really wants to know how the process works can watch FCPS's own presentations on it, if you didn't go when your AART gave the level IV presentation. Very helpful stuff here. https://www.fcps.edu/academics/academic-overview/advanced-academic-programs#presentations-learn-about-advanced-academic-programs-and-services

Because everything FCPS puts on its website is patently true! Ok... since you had 3 kids going through this, you must know how it's run. Thank you!

I provided sources for my statements. You have not. What little birdie told you that parent referred kids had extra hoops to jump through?

Kirsten Maloney

And who are you, PP, that you have chats with the senior manager of AAP for FCPS?

Someone who is well-informed on the AAP process nuances.

If FCPS is not actually screening with the central screening committee every single packet (and/or is not preparing a completed packet for every referral pathway), they are open to a whole heckuva lot of lawsuits for lying through their teeth. Which is why I still call troll. The 2020 report you provided didn't actually say what you said is "how it actually worked," it merely provided data on how many kids are screened and what percentage used to come from what referral pathway.

Good job! Now take the next step and align the # screened to the % of referral pathway and you'll find the gap. That gap is what we are talking about today! Almost there ...

As for a whole heckuva lot of lawsuits, when we look at it in a "holistic" manner, there is a lot of room left for interpretation. That's why you will always find that term ("talking point") used by every single AART. No where on their website do they say that every child who applied, either through parent referral or other pathways, are screened. You're the one making that assumption.

DP. You are a troll.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone gotten a letter for in pool?

I already submitted the referral form. I can’t believe the in pool letters still haven’t come out yet. Not even the cogat.

[Anonymous]

Does this email go out all at once from fcps?

I have read on dcum that this is an email from fcps, not your school AART.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone gotten a letter for in pool?

I already submitted the referral form. I can’t believe the in pool letters still haven’t come out yet. Not even the cogat.

The in pool email did not come out until the referral due date last year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does this email go out all at once from fcps?

I have read on dcum that this is an email from fcps, not your school AART.

It's an email from the Central office, not your AART. They all go out at once, but somewhat rolling as all mass emails are.