AAPAC report to Fairfax County School Board

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:8:17 I agree with you completely. A kid who just missed getting in or a kid who truly excels in one subject is screwed (pardon my French) at a school with a center.

I don't mean to sound culturally insensitive and I value language diversity but the base classrooms at our center school focus on the very large number of ESOL students and spend so much time going over the basics for SOLS that the native speakers ready for more are so bored.

At DC's center school, there is a gen ed student who goes to DC's AAP classroom for math. Maybe this is only allowed if there is room in the AAP class?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NNAT and CogAt supposedly get at a different type/level of thinking than the SOLs. There's a big difference between a high achieving student and a gifted learner. So maybe honors in ES might work. The problem is that it's not good for the lower achieving students to be grouped with only lower achieving students.

Of course theire are children with SN at all levels. What I was saying is that in the education field "tracking" is a bad word.

Probably the best system depends on the goal. Is the goal to bring all students up to a certain level, so that mixing lower-achieving and higher-achieving students would be desirable even if the higher-achieving are "held back" while helping to pull the lower-achieving ahead? Or is the goal to provide special enrichment for the very highest achievers and fastest learners so that they may reach their fullest potential and make future contributions in medicine, literature, energy-efficiency, world peace? It seems that our current system (select few in AAP and mixed group in gen ed) is an attempt to strike a balance in an imperfect world. The high achievers in gen ed are there not because they could not do more but because they are needed to help the slower learners not fall farther behind. These gen ed high achievers were not chosen to run ahead the fastest, but they are playing an essential role in leading and teaching others. I am not saying that I advocate this system but see how we have ended up at this point, given a combination of goals and beliefs.

That's fine, but then why are students of similar or even in some cases lesser ability in AAP? This is where the program has gone most off the rails, imo. My feelings of dismay at the continued inequities are tempered by the fact that I don't believe grade school is that important and smart kids will catch up -- just as they did with early readers, Kumon artists, etc. But I'd much rather FCPS reserve the "gifted" designation and special treatment for those who actually are.

Wherever you draw the line, some will think that certain kids should have been on the other side of that line. Unfortunately there is no foolproof litmus test where if it turns red it's in and if it turns blue it's out. Judgment calls will always need to be made, the reason for six people reviewing each file and considering a range of factors. Can you suggest a foolproof in or out criteria that everyone would agree with? I believe that FCPS uses the same gifted criteria as the rest of the nation, trying for IQ at or above 132. At least that was the benchmark on the NNAT. In years past CogAT cutoff was also 132, until the CogAT started being gamed. So generally you need to be at around the 98th percentile for the nation. In our highly educated area, 10-15% of children may meet that 98th percentile national criteria. WISC IV FSIQ percentile may be lower, brought down by WMI and PSI, but the biggies VCI and/or PRI still need to be in the range. In other states children of similar aptitude are receiving gifted services.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a link to the AAPAC presentation from last night's work session:

http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/987R8L6CC090/$file/AAPAC%202013%20SB%20Presentation.pdf

12:13, you seem knowledgeable about AAPAC. Do you know the position of the AAP office or AAPAC on "prepping" for NNAT and CogAT?

As far as I know, AAPAC has not taken a "position" on "prepping" for NNAT and CogAT.

I believe the AAPAC office has made their opinion of prepping known with the posting about the custom form of the CogAT on their website:

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/pdfs/FAQre2012CustomizedCogAT.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a link to the AAPAC presentation from last night's work session:

http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/987R8L6CC090/$file/AAPAC%202013%20SB%20Presentation.pdf

12:13, you seem knowledgeable about AAPAC. Do you know the position of the AAP office or AAPAC on "prepping" for NNAT and CogAT?

As far as I know, AAPAC has not taken a "position" on "prepping" for NNAT and CogAT.

I believe the AAPAC office has made their opinion of prepping known with the posting about the custom form of the CogAT on their website:

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/pdfs/FAQre2012CustomizedCogAT.pdf

Thank you for the response and link. I think there is still some ambiguity because the CogAT posting refers to preparation done with the "exact form" of the test. Most likely even the die-hard proponents of prepping would agree that using an exact copy of the test is wrong and constitutes cheating. But what about using sample tests that are not exact copies? Or sending children to prep classes that utilize such materials? Much debate has surrounded this topic so it would be great to have an official FCPS statement. Is prepping with sample tests no different from using SAT prep materials as some have claimed? It sounds like some AARTs and at least one principal have encouraged it. Or is prepping gaining an unfair advantage and invalidating the measurement of how a child does when confronted with a problem of a type that he or she has never seen before? Are nonpreppers being fair to others or are they being foolish? Are preppers smart or are they scammers? Thank you in advance for any further information you can share.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a link to the AAPAC presentation from last night's work session:

http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/987R8L6CC090/$file/AAPAC%202013%20SB%20Presentation.pdf

12:13, you seem knowledgeable about AAPAC. Do you know the position of the AAP office or AAPAC on "prepping" for NNAT and CogAT?

As far as I know, AAPAC has not taken a "position" on "prepping" for NNAT and CogAT.

I believe the AAPAC office has made their opinion of prepping known with the posting about the custom form of the CogAT on their website:

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/pdfs/FAQre2012CustomizedCogAT.pdf

Thank you for the response and link. I think there is still some ambiguity because the CogAT posting refers to preparation done with the "exact form" of the test. Most likely even the die-hard proponents of prepping would agree that using an exact copy of the test is wrong and constitutes cheating. But what about using sample tests that are not exact copies? Or sending children to prep classes that utilize such materials? Much debate has surrounded this topic so it would be great to have an official FCPS statement. Is prepping with sample tests no different from using SAT prep materials as some have claimed? It sounds like some AARTs and at least one principal have encouraged it. Or is prepping gaining an unfair advantage and invalidating the measurement of how a child does when confronted with a problem of a type that he or she has never seen before? Are nonpreppers being fair to others or are they being foolish? Are preppers smart or are they scammers? Thank you in advance for any further information you can share.

I really cannot speak for/post on behalf of the AAP office; I'm simply a (volunteer) member of AAPAC. It may be worthwhile to contact somewhere at the AAP office directly and ask your questions that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NNAT and CogAt supposedly get at a different type/level of thinking than the SOLs. There's a big difference between a high achieving student and a gifted learner. So maybe honors in ES might work. The problem is that it's not good for the lower achieving students to be grouped with only lower achieving students.

Of course theire are children with SN at all levels. What I was saying is that in the education field "tracking" is a bad word.

Probably the best system depends on the goal. Is the goal to bring all students up to a certain level, so that mixing lower-achieving and higher-achieving students would be desirable even if the higher-achieving are "held back" while helping to pull the lower-achieving ahead? Or is the goal to provide special enrichment for the very highest achievers and fastest learners so that they may reach their fullest potential and make future contributions in medicine, literature, energy-efficiency, world peace? It seems that our current system (select few in AAP and mixed group in gen ed) is an attempt to strike a balance in an imperfect world. The high achievers in gen ed are there not because they could not do more but because they are needed to help the slower learners not fall farther behind. These gen ed high achievers were not chosen to run ahead the fastest, but they are playing an essential role in leading and teaching others. I am not saying that I advocate this system but see how we have ended up at this point, given a combination of goals and beliefs.

That's fine, but then why are students of similar or even in some cases lesser ability in AAP? This is where the program has gone most off the rails, imo. My feelings of dismay at the continued inequities are tempered by the fact that I don't believe grade school is that important and smart kids will catch up -- just as they did with early readers, Kumon artists, etc. But I'd much rather FCPS reserve the "gifted" designation and special treatment for those who actually are.

Wherever you draw the line, some will think that certain kids should have been on the other side of that line. Unfortunately there is no foolproof litmus test where if it turns red it's in and if it turns blue it's out. Judgment calls will always need to be made, the reason for six people reviewing each file and considering a range of factors. Can you suggest a foolproof in or out criteria that everyone would agree with? I believe that FCPS uses the same gifted criteria as the rest of the nation, trying for IQ at or above 132. At least that was the benchmark on the NNAT. In years past CogAT cutoff was also 132, until the CogAT started being gamed. So generally you need to be at around the 98th percentile for the nation. In our highly educated area, 10-15% of children may meet that 98th percentile national criteria. WISC IV FSIQ percentile may be lower, brought down by WMI and PSI, but the biggies VCI and/or PRI still need to be in the range. In other states children of similar aptitude are receiving gifted services.

For Stanford Binet it is 132. WISC IV GAI (VCI and PRI) is 130. Research shows WISC IV FSIQ can be 123.5 for gifted.

[Anonymous]

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/pdfs/FAQre2012CustomizedCogAT.pdf

Thank you for the response and link. I think there is still some ambiguity because the CogAT posting refers to preparation done with the "exact form" of the test. Most likely even the die-hard proponents of prepping would agree that using an exact copy of the test is wrong and constitutes cheating. But what about using sample tests that are not exact copies? Or sending children to prep classes that utilize such materials?

New poster here. Nothing official, but the understanding I got from talking to some AAP teachers was that some companies are using "sample" tests that are so similar that only certain words have been changed from the test questions the kids are actually getting when the school administers the test. So, there might be a particular type of question in the practice book and on the real test, everything is the same except a few words that don't change anything about how the question is answered. This would explain why kids will come out of the test saying that they'd already practiced all the questions at home and that they'd seen all the questions already. They are so similar, with only, say, a noun or an adjective being changed, that they seem to be the same to the children.
Where do you draw the line between cheating/scamming and "prepping"? I don't know. I don't remember this being an issue 10-15 years ago. When my older kids were in the program, only 10-11% were eligible, so the situation does seem to be different now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a link to the AAPAC presentation from last night's work session:

http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/987R8L6CC090/$file/AAPAC%202013%20SB%20Presentation.pdf

12:13, you seem knowledgeable about AAPAC. Do you know the position of the AAP office or AAPAC on "prepping" for NNAT and CogAT?

As far as I know, AAPAC has not taken a "position" on "prepping" for NNAT and CogAT.

I believe the AAPAC office has made their opinion of prepping known with the posting about the custom form of the CogAT on their website:

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/pdfs/FAQre2012CustomizedCogAT.pdf

Thank you for the response and link. I think there is still some ambiguity because the CogAT posting refers to preparation done with the "exact form" of the test. Most likely even the die-hard proponents of prepping would agree that using an exact copy of the test is wrong and constitutes cheating. But what about using sample tests that are not exact copies? Or sending children to prep classes that utilize such materials? Much debate has surrounded this topic so it would be great to have an official FCPS statement. Is prepping with sample tests no different from using SAT prep materials as some have claimed? It sounds like some AARTs and at least one principal have encouraged it. Or is prepping gaining an unfair advantage and invalidating the measurement of how a child does when confronted with a problem of a type that he or she has never seen before? Are nonpreppers being fair to others or are they being foolish? Are preppers smart or are they scammers? Thank you in advance for any further information you can share.

I really cannot speak for/post on behalf of the AAP office; I'm simply a (volunteer) member of AAPAC. It may be worthwhile to contact somewhere at the AAP office directly and ask your questions that way.

Thank you. I understand. I really appreciate having someone from AAPAC in our midst to be aware of parent concerns.