Local Norms for AAP In-Pool Determination now Illegal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, our school sends home about 4 flyers and 15 digital messages on the topic each year. They also host about 3 AAP info sessions that are advertised on the school sign in English and Spanish....its not that hard to get information. We also were not in FCPS when we transferred in. But, we got all the information we needed a year ahead of time. The parents do not know the process are the same parents who put zero effort looking into it.

AKA the overwhelmed parents who are too busy working 2 jobs to support their family to keep up with the emails and attend meetings, or (relating to the zero effort comment) those who just see public schools as free-daycare. It just so happens that this poorer demographic also aligns to many of the same groups that benefit from DEI activities.

[Anonymous]

In pool determination just means the school will refer the child for consideration. It doesn't mean the child will get into AAP.

But to make those parents happy, how about we do in-pool for those top 10% in every school AND those top 10% in FCPS? I mean isn't that what some parents are afraid that their top 10% kid might miss out on the brownie point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In pool determination just means the school will refer the child for consideration. It doesn't mean the child will get into AAP.

But to make those parents happy, how about we do in-pool for those top 10% in every school AND those top 10% in FCPS? I mean isn't that what some parents are afraid that their top 10% kid might miss out on the brownie point?

Bah - That is just watering down the prestige that comes with being in-pool. What these people REALLY want is a greater chance of getting into the elite program and setting barriers for others to keep them out. If they let more people in, then it's not at elite! Just make it selective enough that their child barely makes the cut so they can feel better about their parenting style and accomplishments, while basking in glory over the peasants on the other side...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In pool determination just means the school will refer the child for consideration. It doesn't mean the child will get into AAP.

But to make those parents happy, how about we do in-pool for those top 10% in every school AND those top 10% in FCPS? I mean isn't that what some parents are afraid that their top 10% kid might miss out on the brownie point?

DP. Yes, that is what it should mean. And btw, before they changed to local norms, being in-pool was not a brownie point but students in-pool were much more likely to be admitted (not inexplicably). Those with "old" in-pool scores remain more likely to be admitted - but if they are not in-pool and their parents rely on the system rather than refer, then they will not be admitted.

Not sure why you disagree with this.

[Anonymous]

You do realize that no one here knows what the top 10% for the county is, right? Just because your student gets a score in the 99th percentile... that still might not be the top 10% of the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In pool determination just means the school will refer the child for consideration. It doesn't mean the child will get into AAP.

But to make those parents happy, how about we do in-pool for those top 10% in every school AND those top 10% in FCPS? I mean isn't that what some parents are afraid that their top 10% kid might miss out on the brownie point?

DP. Yes, that is what it should mean. And btw, before they changed to local norms, being in-pool was not a brownie point but students in-pool were much more likely to be admitted (not inexplicably). Those with "old" in-pool scores remain more likely to be admitted - but if they are not in-pool and their parents rely on the system rather than refer, then they will not be admitted.

Not sure why you disagree with this.

"students in-pool were much more likely to be admitted"

It is a correlation but not causation. In-pool students usually have higher test scores, of course they would be more likely to be admitted on average. But if your child has the SAME high score but not in-pool due to local school 10% limit, his/her chance of being admitted WOULD NOT BE hurt. Being in-pool just means the school will refer regardless family knows about AAP or not. The application package won't say if the child is in-pool or not. If your child has the same score and work samples, they would be admitted regardless in-pool status.

Why everyone is so obsessed with in-pool status? If you want it I am proposing to give it to you. Just one less meaningless things to argue about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In pool determination just means the school will refer the child for consideration. It doesn't mean the child will get into AAP.

But to make those parents happy, how about we do in-pool for those top 10% in every school AND those top 10% in FCPS? I mean isn't that what some parents are afraid that their top 10% kid might miss out on the brownie point?

DP. Yes, that is what it should mean. And btw, before they changed to local norms, being in-pool was not a brownie point but students in-pool were much more likely to be admitted (not inexplicably). Those with "old" in-pool scores remain more likely to be admitted - but if they are not in-pool and their parents rely on the system rather than refer, then they will not be admitted.

Not sure why you disagree with this.

"students in-pool were much more likely to be admitted"

It is a correlation but not causation. In-pool students usually have higher test scores, of course they would be more likely to be admitted on average. But if your child has the SAME high score but not in-pool due to local school 10% limit, his/her chance of being admitted WOULD NOT BE hurt. Being in-pool just means the school will refer regardless family knows about AAP or not. The application package won't say if the child is in-pool or not. If your child has the same score and work samples, they would be admitted regardless in-pool status.

Why everyone is so obsessed with in-pool status? If you want it I am proposing to give it to you. Just one less meaningless things to argue about.

In the not-too-distant past, parents did not have to refer their students, the school system was designed to take care of it. If a child with the SAME high score but not in-pool is not parent referred, that child will not be admitted. IOW, yes, that child's chance of being admitted would be zero. Why? Why does the local norms pool determination exclude students with scores 132+? What is the logic of that? I agree that there has been a lot of prepping recently but not every student is prepped - why are those students with parents who have not prepped them being excluded?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In pool determination just means the school will refer the child for consideration. It doesn't mean the child will get into AAP.

But to make those parents happy, how about we do in-pool for those top 10% in every school AND those top 10% in FCPS? I mean isn't that what some parents are afraid that their top 10% kid might miss out on the brownie point?

DP. Yes, that is what it should mean. And btw, before they changed to local norms, being in-pool was not a brownie point but students in-pool were much more likely to be admitted (not inexplicably). Those with "old" in-pool scores remain more likely to be admitted - but if they are not in-pool and their parents rely on the system rather than refer, then they will not be admitted.

Not sure why you disagree with this.

"students in-pool were much more likely to be admitted"

It is a correlation but not causation. In-pool students usually have higher test scores, of course they would be more likely to be admitted on average. But if your child has the SAME high score but not in-pool due to local school 10% limit, his/her chance of being admitted WOULD NOT BE hurt. Being in-pool just means the school will refer regardless family knows about AAP or not. The application package won't say if the child is in-pool or not. If your child has the same score and work samples, they would be admitted regardless in-pool status.

Why everyone is so obsessed with in-pool status? If you want it I am proposing to give it to you. Just one less meaningless things to argue about.

In the not-too-distant past, parents did not have to refer their students, the school system was designed to take care of it. If a child with the SAME high score but not in-pool is not parent referred, that child will not be admitted. IOW, yes, that child's chance of being admitted would be zero. Why? Why does the local norms pool determination exclude students with scores 132+? What is the logic of that? I agree that there has been a lot of prepping recently but not every student is prepped - why are those students with parents who have not prepped them being excluded?

Because there's not enough room for everyone, but they would never say that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, our school sends home about 4 flyers and 15 digital messages on the topic each year. They also host about 3 AAP info sessions that are advertised on the school sign in English and Spanish....its not that hard to get information. We also were not in FCPS when we transferred in. But, we got all the information we needed a year ahead of time. The parents do not know the process are the same parents who put zero effort looking into it.

AKA the overwhelmed parents who are too busy working 2 jobs to support their family to keep up with the emails and attend meetings, or (relating to the zero effort comment) those who just see public schools as free-daycare. It just so happens that this poorer demographic also aligns to many of the same groups that benefit from DEI activities.

We are told here on a daily basis that AAP testing is really meant to be taken without any preparation, that these tests cannot and should not be prepped for. Then the family such as you describe really fits the bill, doesn't it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, our school sends home about 4 flyers and 15 digital messages on the topic each year. They also host about 3 AAP info sessions that are advertised on the school sign in English and Spanish....its not that hard to get information. We also were not in FCPS when we transferred in. But, we got all the information we needed a year ahead of time. The parents do not know the process are the same parents who put zero effort looking into it.

AKA the overwhelmed parents who are too busy working 2 jobs to support their family to keep up with the emails and attend meetings, or (relating to the zero effort comment) those who just see public schools as free-daycare. It just so happens that this poorer demographic also aligns to many of the same groups that benefit from DEI activities.

We are told here on a daily basis that AAP testing is really meant to be taken without any preparation, that these tests cannot and should not be prepped for. Then the family such as you describe really fits the bill, doesn't it.

The teacher actually prep the students with some sample questions and how to do the test.

My nephew was one year old than my son and he went through prep class and his parents said it's not worth it. So I ended up "prepping" my 6-7 year old son by just let him do the problems, and go through the mistaken ones. The test is straightforward, prepping really can't increase the performance that much. My son was actually excited about doing those puzzles and he thought it as a game. I can imagine other kids with brain built differently could think the test is silly and boring, but they are not less smart. Unfortunately test is the way to do in school.

[Anonymous]

If student selection is based on "local norms", then will the AAP course syllabus be modified by school to fit the "local norms" standards, and a slightly lenient grading to go with that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If student selection is based on "local norms", then will the AAP course syllabus be modified by school to fit the "local norms" standards, and a slightly lenient grading to go with that?

Yes.

[Anonymous]

So in essence, all the "local norms" selection concept does at a poorly managed elementary school is split the class into AAP and gen ed, but more or less teach the same material in both; however, FCPS gets to claim increased AAP presence and a desired diversity chart? But wont SOL scores or any external evaluation indicators show the same achievement gap when that school gets compared to top fcps elementary school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In pool determination just means the school will refer the child for consideration. It doesn't mean the child will get into AAP.

But to make those parents happy, how about we do in-pool for those top 10% in every school AND those top 10% in FCPS? I mean isn't that what some parents are afraid that their top 10% kid might miss out on the brownie point?

DP. Yes, that is what it should mean. And btw, before they changed to local norms, being in-pool was not a brownie point but students in-pool were much more likely to be admitted (not inexplicably). Those with "old" in-pool scores remain more likely to be admitted - but if they are not in-pool and their parents rely on the system rather than refer, then they will not be admitted.

Not sure why you disagree with this.

"students in-pool were much more likely to be admitted"

It is a correlation but not causation. In-pool students usually have higher test scores, of course they would be more likely to be admitted on average. But if your child has the SAME high score but not in-pool due to local school 10% limit, his/her chance of being admitted WOULD NOT BE hurt. Being in-pool just means the school will refer regardless family knows about AAP or not. The application package won't say if the child is in-pool or not. If your child has the same score and work samples, they would be admitted regardless in-pool status.

Why everyone is so obsessed with in-pool status? If you want it I am proposing to give it to you. Just one less meaningless things to argue about.

In the not-too-distant past, parents did not have to refer their students, the school system was designed to take care of it. If a child with the SAME high score but not in-pool is not parent referred, that child will not be admitted. IOW, yes, that child's chance of being admitted would be zero. Why? Why does the local norms pool determination exclude students with scores 132+? What is the logic of that? I agree that there has been a lot of prepping recently but not every student is prepped - why are those students with parents who have not prepped them being excluded?

I think you know the "talking point": kids with scores below the 10% threshold for the school don't need a pullout because there are other smart enough kids in gen ed in that school for there to be a peer group.

[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

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

Yes, the majority get in with a purchased gifted diagnosis and appeals.