Local Norms for AAP In-Pool Determination now Illegal

[Anonymous]

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

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.

Of course, FCPS acknowledges that it might not get it right always in evaluating a student, and hence provides qualified lower middle class student and their family a process to appeal. It is ironic but that only informed lower middle class families tend to purse the diagnosis and appeal path. If the process involved objective and consistent criteria, an appeal process would not be needed.

[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.

This is a myth. Any parent who gives a s*** will find a way both to support their kids education and to keep up with the emails and parent refer etc. This also has nothing to do with rich vs poor but rather values. But you knew that.

[Anonymous]

They aren't trying to get it right. They are trying to make it "equitable". Very different things.

[Anonymous]

A gifted kid should be placed in AAP regardless of where they live. If high SES schools have more gifted kids, then there should be more AAP classes to accomodate them.
My kid who tested in the 98% across all tests, was NOT in pool because we live in a high SES area. Make the pool larger!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A gifted kid should be placed in AAP regardless of where they live. If high SES schools have more gifted kids, then there should be more AAP classes to accomodate them.
My kid who tested in the 98% across all tests, was NOT in pool because we live in a high SES area. Make the pool larger!

Did you parent refer? Because being in-pool does not mean a kid is placed in AAP LIV. Plenty of parent refered kids are in LIV classes.

The pool does not mean that kids are accepted into AAP. The majority of kids in LIV classes were not in the pool.

[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.

This is a myth. Any parent who gives a s*** will find a way both to support their kids education and to keep up with the emails and parent refer etc. This also has nothing to do with rich vs poor but rather values. But you knew that.

So the child who has parents who aren’t familiar with/can’t keep up with this process should be shunted aside because their parents don’t have the right “values” according to you?

Sorry, but this process should be about identifying children whose educational needs are not met by the regular classroom, not identifying which children have parents who are tuned into the system in order to make sure their children get into the program. Kids don’t choose their parents; public education should not hinge on whether parents know which buttons to push at the right time. Especially for a program like this, which we all know serves a lot of kids who would actually do just as well, if not better, in the regular classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is a myth. Any parent who gives a s*** will find a way both to support their kids education and to keep up with the emails and parent refer etc. This also has nothing to do with rich vs poor but rather values. But you knew that.

So the child who has parents who aren’t familiar with/can’t keep up with this process should be shunted aside because their parents don’t have the right “values” according to you?

Sorry, but this process should be about identifying children whose educational needs are not met by the regular classroom, not identifying which children have parents who are tuned into the system in order to make sure their children get into the program. Kids don’t choose their parents; public education should not hinge on whether parents know which buttons to push at the right time. Especially for a program like this, which we all know serves a lot of kids who would actually do just as well, if not better, in the regular classroom.

It shouldn't be about the parents or the SES of the kids' families. It should be about students who demonstrate --based on multiple universal testing instruments --that they need AAP. Doesn't matter what their backgrounds are. Let the kids who need AAP have it. No need to twist ourselves into pretzels with contrived holistic paradigms, parent referrals, etc. This effort is way less effective than it would be if FCPS stuck to a few well regarded testing mechanisms. Sure, parents can appeal, but they shouldn't have to refer at all, especially not for students in the 98-99 percentile when the program accommodates 20% of the kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is a myth. Any parent who gives a s*** will find a way both to support their kids education and to keep up with the emails and parent refer etc. This also has nothing to do with rich vs poor but rather values. But you knew that.

So the child who has parents who aren’t familiar with/can’t keep up with this process should be shunted aside because their parents don’t have the right “values” according to you?

Sorry, but this process should be about identifying children whose educational needs are not met by the regular classroom, not identifying which children have parents who are tuned into the system in order to make sure their children get into the program. Kids don’t choose their parents; public education should not hinge on whether parents know which buttons to push at the right time. Especially for a program like this, which we all know serves a lot of kids who would actually do just as well, if not better, in the regular classroom.

You are just making up this fictional parent who is overworked and lacks awareness of the process and can't refer their kid. Regardless, if their kid is bright, they'd be in pool by the old standards.

Smart kids who aren't getting their needs met should not be shunted. This isn't about that.

And speaking of the program serving kids who would do well in the regular classroom, yes, and a lot of this is due to FCPS's equity goals and changing this from a program for advanced kids who are well ahead of their peers in terms of the curriculum to one that is for kids who are advanced relative to those in their building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A gifted kid should be placed in AAP regardless of where they live. If high SES schools have more gifted kids, then there should be more AAP classes to accomodate them.
My kid who tested in the 98% across all tests, was NOT in pool because we live in a high SES area. Make the pool larger!

Did you parent refer? Because being in-pool does not mean a kid is placed in AAP LIV. Plenty of parent refered kids are in LIV classes.

The pool does not mean that kids are accepted into AAP. The majority of kids in LIV classes were not in the pool.

I did refer, but that's not the point. My point is that it's unfair for a kid at that level to not be considered right away and be placed in pool. Being in pool does increase your chanes of being admited. The same happened with my older child who tested in the 99% and was not in pool. We parent referred in both cases.
Kids who test at those levels should be accepted into AAP automatically and not be penalized because they have more competition. The higher competition does not change the fact that they need more advanced math.

[Anonymous]

I should also add that neither kid was test although we live in Mclean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I should also add that neither kid was test although we live in Mclean.

*"test prepped".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A gifted kid should be placed in AAP regardless of where they live. If high SES schools have more gifted kids, then there should be more AAP classes to accomodate them.
My kid who tested in the 98% across all tests, was NOT in pool because we live in a high SES area. Make the pool larger!

Did you parent refer? Because being in-pool does not mean a kid is placed in AAP LIV. Plenty of parent refered kids are in LIV classes.

The pool does not mean that kids are accepted into AAP. The majority of kids in LIV classes were not in the pool.

I did refer, but that's not the point. My point is that it's unfair for a kid at that level to not be considered right away and be placed in pool. Being in pool does increase your chanes of being admited. The same happened with my older child who tested in the 99% and was not in pool. We parent referred in both cases.
Kids who test at those levels should be accepted into AAP automatically and not be penalized because they have more competition. The higher competition does not change the fact that they need more advanced math.

There is nothing on the application that says your child was in-pool or not, at least there didn't used to be. Kids with higher test scores have a better chance of being admitted. It used to be that the in-pool test score was set at a bar that a lot larger number of kids were in-pool. For all we know, the percentage of kids parent referred is going to increase because of the use of local norms. That 132 who was in-pool and accepted now is parent referred and accepted. The 125 kid in in-pool based on local norm maybe isn't accepted and the in-pool accepted percentage drops.

You knew to refer your child. Most of the parents at the UMC/MC schools know that they can refer their children. In-pool is not trying to gather those kids. It is trying to gather people who don't know about the program who have kids who are capable and should be evaluated.

Advanced Math is determined by the school. A kid with high iReady's, high SOLs, and good grades should be included in Advanced Math. Nothing is preventing the individual school from doing just that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is a myth. Any parent who gives a s*** will find a way both to support their kids education and to keep up with the emails and parent refer etc. This also has nothing to do with rich vs poor but rather values. But you knew that.

So the child who has parents who aren’t familiar with/can’t keep up with this process should be shunted aside because their parents don’t have the right “values” according to you?

Sorry, but this process should be about identifying children whose educational needs are not met by the regular classroom, not identifying which children have parents who are tuned into the system in order to make sure their children get into the program. Kids don’t choose their parents; public education should not hinge on whether parents know which buttons to push at the right time. Especially for a program like this, which we all know serves a lot of kids who would actually do just as well, if not better, in the regular classroom.

You are just making up this fictional parent who is overworked and lacks awareness of the process and can't refer their kid. Regardless, if their kid is bright, they'd be in pool by the old standards.

Smart kids who aren't getting their needs met should not be shunted. This isn't about that.

And speaking of the program serving kids who would do well in the regular classroom, yes, and a lot of this is due to FCPS's equity goals and changing this from a program for advanced kids who are well ahead of their peers in terms of the curriculum to one that is for kids who are advanced relative to those in their building.

Many of the kids in AAP who would do just as well in the regular classroom are the kids from advantaged households whose parents have the right “values” as some like to say. A lot of them are only in the program because their parents are very savvy about the parental questionnaire, testing, and work samples. But you knew that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I should also add that neither kid was test although we live in Mclean.

*"test prepped".

Your mistake

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A gifted kid should be placed in AAP regardless of where they live. If high SES schools have more gifted kids, then there should be more AAP classes to accomodate them.
My kid who tested in the 98% across all tests, was NOT in pool because we live in a high SES area. Make the pool larger!

Did you parent refer? Because being in-pool does not mean a kid is placed in AAP LIV. Plenty of parent refered kids are in LIV classes.

The pool does not mean that kids are accepted into AAP. The majority of kids in LIV classes were not in the pool.

I did refer, but that's not the point. My point is that it's unfair for a kid at that level to not be considered right away and be placed in pool. Being in pool does increase your chanes of being admited. The same happened with my older child who tested in the 99% and was not in pool. We parent referred in both cases.
Kids who test at those levels should be accepted into AAP automatically and not be penalized because they have more competition. The higher competition does not change the fact that they need more advanced math.

There is nothing on the application that says your child was in-pool or not, at least there didn't used to be. Kids with higher test scores have a better chance of being admitted. It used to be that the in-pool test score was set at a bar that a lot larger number of kids were in-pool. For all we know, the percentage of kids parent referred is going to increase because of the use of local norms. That 132 who was in-pool and accepted now is parent referred and accepted. The 125 kid in in-pool based on local norm maybe isn't accepted and the in-pool accepted percentage drops.

You knew to refer your child. Most of the parents at the UMC/MC schools know that they can refer their children. In-pool is not trying to gather those kids. It is trying to gather people who don't know about the program who have kids who are capable and should be evaluated.

Advanced Math is determined by the school. A kid with high iReady's, high SOLs, and good grades should be included in Advanced Math. Nothing is preventing the individual school from doing just that.

I think it's very unlikely that the committee doesn't know the inpool score for the school when reviewing the packets from the school.