Level 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This process is horrible. I have twins who have never received any academic tutoring. They were hand picked by the school for level 2 in 1st grade and randomly (accidentally?) booted from it despite 80% in iready and mostly 4s. 97% cogat 99% nnat 130 iq. Rejected for level iv. And I haven't heard boo on my level 3 application submitted in February.

80% iReady scores do not indicate a child that needs extra services. It represents a child that is doing fine in the regular classroom. They are getting 4's because they have mastered grade level material but their iReady's don't show that they are ahead of grade level.

97% on the CoGAT shows that they are smart and capable, it is a great score. Most of the kids in LIV have scores in the 99th percentile. There are some kids in AAP in the 97-98th percentile but not that many and I suspect those kids are coming from Title 1 schools.

I doubt they were removed from LII accidently, I would guess that they were not performing at the level of the other kids in the LII groupings, at least, their iReady scores suggest that.

Except that iReady's are typically used as diagnostics to identify gaps and focus areas, not traditional achievement tests. This is the first year that they seemed to have emphasized it at all in the decision process.

Anecdotally, every child in AAP gets 99% (132 composite?) but the study done a few years back identified the actual average at 123 if I recall.

It's hard to achieve higher grade level skills in order to do well as you state without supplementation from home or other outside resources... which the OP states receives none. Maybe a disservice to the kids if AAP was the desired outcome.

Being bumped from LII is NOT a promising indicator of how the School and AART feel about your children.

For OP, the only thing I can recommend is to not let your foot off the pedal - let it be known you want your child to receive services, and why. If you're at a non-center school, advocate for your child to be in the LLIV program as a fill-in. As sad as it is, the more vocal parents will influence decisions over the non-complainers. (it could also back-fire, but honestly the chances of that are slim given FCPS track record)

Yes, this. IMO without outside supplementation, a large gap in percentiles on ability (CogAt, WISC) and achievement (Iready) testing means the child isn't being fully challenged (or the child isn't paying much attention to the iready). Once I started doing outside supplementation, my child's iready percentiles magically starting shooting up, more in line with ability testing subscores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This process is horrible. I have twins who have never received any academic tutoring. They were hand picked by the school for level 2 in 1st grade and randomly (accidentally?) booted from it despite 80% in iready and mostly 4s. 97% cogat 99% nnat 130 iq. Rejected for level iv. And I haven't heard boo on my level 3 application submitted in February.

80% iReady scores do not indicate a child that needs extra services. It represents a child that is doing fine in the regular classroom. They are getting 4's because they have mastered grade level material but their iReady's don't show that they are ahead of grade level.

97% on the CoGAT shows that they are smart and capable, it is a great score. Most of the kids in LIV have scores in the 99th percentile. There are some kids in AAP in the 97-98th percentile but not that many and I suspect those kids are coming from Title 1 schools.

I doubt they were removed from LII accidently, I would guess that they were not performing at the level of the other kids in the LII groupings, at least, their iReady scores suggest that.

The bolded is just flat out wrong. The AAP equity report showed that in the 2018 2nd grade cohort (pre local norms), a score of 132 (98th percentile) on either the NNAT or CogAT composite was needed to be in-pool. 1409 kids in that cohort were in-pool. 2071 kids were found eligible. Not all of the in-pool kids were admitted to AAP, and some of the admitted kids had scores that were quite low on at least one test. The same report showed that GBRS was 4 times more important than CogAT scores for AAP eligibility, and the NNAT scores were largely ignored.

In PP's case, the kids were likely rejected due to low HOPE scores. If the teacher booted the kids from LII, then the HOPE was probably horrible.

If you think that there are a high percentage of high SES kids with CoGATs below the 99th percentile then I have a bridge I would love to sell you. I am sure that there are a small percentage of kids at high SES centers and ES that fall into the 98th percentile and are in AAP but not that many. Your below 98th percentile CoGAT scores are coming from the Title 1 and near Title 1 schools. All you have to do is look at the in-pool scores reported here for LIV applications to see what the score disparities are.

DP. In pool scores are only the top 10% of kids at each school, but 20% of kids are admitted to AAP. That means a large amount of kids have scores BELOW the in pool cutoff.

20% by 6th grade. It is not 20% in 3rd grade but grows as kids apply in later grades and move into the region. And the in-pool scores at most of the lower SES scores are in the 120's. The students at higher SES schools that are not in-pool and accepted are probably in the 132 range. The lower scores from the Title 1 and near Title 1 schools are what drops the average into the mid 120's.

We're at a higher SES center school. I ran some numbers based on how many students are reported to be in LIV minus transfers from other schools for LIV and determined closer to 30% of kids with our center as a base school are in AAP. It's improbable they are all scoring 99%. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This process is horrible. I have twins who have never received any academic tutoring. They were hand picked by the school for level 2 in 1st grade and randomly (accidentally?) booted from it despite 80% in iready and mostly 4s. 97% cogat 99% nnat 130 iq. Rejected for level iv. And I haven't heard boo on my level 3 application submitted in February.

80% iReady scores do not indicate a child that needs extra services. It represents a child that is doing fine in the regular classroom. They are getting 4's because they have mastered grade level material but their iReady's don't show that they are ahead of grade level.

97% on the CoGAT shows that they are smart and capable, it is a great score. Most of the kids in LIV have scores in the 99th percentile. There are some kids in AAP in the 97-98th percentile but not that many and I suspect those kids are coming from Title 1 schools.

I doubt they were removed from LII accidently, I would guess that they were not performing at the level of the other kids in the LII groupings, at least, their iReady scores suggest that.

The bolded is just flat out wrong. The AAP equity report showed that in the 2018 2nd grade cohort (pre local norms), a score of 132 (98th percentile) on either the NNAT or CogAT composite was needed to be in-pool. 1409 kids in that cohort were in-pool. 2071 kids were found eligible. Not all of the in-pool kids were admitted to AAP, and some of the admitted kids had scores that were quite low on at least one test. The same report showed that GBRS was 4 times more important than CogAT scores for AAP eligibility, and the NNAT scores were largely ignored.

In PP's case, the kids were likely rejected due to low HOPE scores. If the teacher booted the kids from LII, then the HOPE was probably horrible.

If you think that there are a high percentage of high SES kids with CoGATs below the 99th percentile then I have a bridge I would love to sell you. I am sure that there are a small percentage of kids at high SES centers and ES that fall into the 98th percentile and are in AAP but not that many. Your below 98th percentile CoGAT scores are coming from the Title 1 and near Title 1 schools. All you have to do is look at the in-pool scores reported here for LIV applications to see what the score disparities are.

DP. In pool scores are only the top 10% of kids at each school, but 20% of kids are admitted to AAP. That means a large amount of kids have scores BELOW the in pool cutoff.

20% by 6th grade. It is not 20% in 3rd grade but grows as kids apply in later grades and move into the region. And the in-pool scores at most of the lower SES scores are in the 120's. The students at higher SES schools that are not in-pool and accepted are probably in the 132 range. The lower scores from the Title 1 and near Title 1 schools are what drops the average into the mid 120's.

You’re forgetting one major thing. The equity report showed that the teacher ratings were MUCH more important than any other factor. Fixating on test scores and quibbling about whether a 97th percentile is too low is pointless. Even at high SES schools, kids with lowers scores but high HOPE scores and great work samples tend to get in.

PP’s kids obviously got low HOPE scores. The fact that they were in LII for 1st and removed for 2nd means that the teachers and school did not think highly of their abilities.