FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they're really doing to do this, then they rip it all up. Change every boundary for every neighborhood and every school. Start completely over. Convert some of the ES to MS because the current MS's aren't large enough to accomodate 6-8.

They said they want a holistic review of every boundary. If this is the direction they're heading, it's not just going to be the Langley and West Springfield communities complaining once those draft maps come out in June.

This is what's been stated the "AI Tool", Frontline GIS, will do being used by Thru Consulting. They will use a clean slate, plug in "the data" they've collected and completely redraw everything. Some of the most recent minutes have identified "natural boarders" like the beltway, 66, 50. If all this ES to MS efforts are true, this will be plugged now vs later. It's been mentioned that many of the SB members don't have kids in school anymore so what do they have to lose? Thru Consulting is not local to DC which removes neighborhood bias as well. If they are going to anger and have to deal with a few subsets, why not Big Bang it all at once? If they are willing to risk not getting re-elected over pockets of change, why not rip it all up?

On the October 8 work session, this is exactly what Thru said they would do.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i04W3vvtV4w

The rezoning discussion starts at 2:47.

Thru discusses the software around 3:34.

There is discussion around 3:31 that part of the process will be marketing the change to parents by convincing them that school rankings by Niche and Great Schools are flawed and that the new 3 rated schools they are rezoned to are actually "equal or better" quality than the 8 or 10 school they purchased a home in.

4:01 they discuss that the Equity Officer will be involved in the process to guarantee compliance with One Fairfax

4:05 they state EVERY high school pyramid will be rezoned

4:17 discuses diversity in the advisory committee

4:19 discusses how the special interest groups were already involved with advising rezoning before the brac was formed

4:25 They discuss how the rezoning software can isolate addresses by demographic for the purpose of rezoning.

4:31 Reid states the software they are using can chart any program (AAP, demographics, etc) down to the individual household address.

4:32 Discusses that the school board already accepted "The Plunker Report" regarding AAP centers, and now they just need to work the recommendations into the rezoning process.

3:36 Dixon asks why did Reid not include any role for the Chief ACADEMIC Officer in the rezoning process, since this will greatly affect academics. Reid responds that the Chief Academic Officer will be brought in eventually, during the BRAC meetings.

If you care about the rezoning process, watch the October 8, 2024 planning meeting to get informed.

Thanks for the time stamps - very helpful!

What is the Plunker Report, and what did it recommend for AAP?

I have no idea.

I follow a lot of school board things, and have never heard of it.

But they were talking about "The Plunker Report" in relation to AAP and rezoning, as something that was a done deal.

I searched it on the website, and nothing came up.

But if you watch the video, you can see that they discuss this report in relation to AAP, as if they all know what it is.

Perhaps someone could listen to the video at that time signature and see if I misheard "Plunker"

It might have been a different, similar word or acronym.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they're really doing to do this, then they rip it all up. Change every boundary for every neighborhood and every school. Start completely over. Convert some of the ES to MS because the current MS's aren't large enough to accomodate 6-8.

They said they want a holistic review of every boundary. If this is the direction they're heading, it's not just going to be the Langley and West Springfield communities complaining once those draft maps come out in June.

This is what's been stated the "AI Tool", Frontline GIS, will do being used by Thru Consulting. They will use a clean slate, plug in "the data" they've collected and completely redraw everything. Some of the most recent minutes have identified "natural boarders" like the beltway, 66, 50. If all this ES to MS efforts are true, this will be plugged now vs later. It's been mentioned that many of the SB members don't have kids in school anymore so what do they have to lose? Thru Consulting is not local to DC which removes neighborhood bias as well. If they are going to anger and have to deal with a few subsets, why not Big Bang it all at once? If they are willing to risk not getting re-elected over pockets of change, why not rip it all up?

On the October 8 work session, this is exactly what Thru said they would do.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i04W3vvtV4w

The rezoning discussion starts at 2:47.

Thru discusses the software around 3:34.

There is discussion around 3:31 that part of the process will be marketing the change to parents by convincing them that school rankings by Niche and Great Schools are flawed and that the new 3 rated schools they are rezoned to are actually "equal or better" quality than the 8 or 10 school they purchased a home in.

4:01 they discuss that the Equity Officer will be involved in the process to guarantee compliance with One Fairfax

4:05 they state EVERY high school pyramid will be rezoned

4:17 discuses diversity in the advisory committee

4:19 discusses how the special interest groups were already involved with advising rezoning before the brac was formed

4:25 They discuss how the rezoning software can isolate addresses by demographic for the purpose of rezoning.

4:31 Reid states the software they are using can chart any program (AAP, demographics, etc) down to the individual household address.

4:32 Discusses that the school board already accepted "The Plunker Report" regarding AAP centers, and now they just need to work the recommendations into the rezoning process.

3:36 Dixon asks why did Reid not include any role for the Chief ACADEMIC Officer in the rezoning process, since this will greatly affect academics. Reid responds that the Chief Academic Officer will be brought in eventually, during the BRAC meetings.

If you care about the rezoning process, watch the October 8, 2024 planning meeting to get informed.

Thanks for the time stamps - very helpful!

What is the Plunker Report, and what did it recommend for AAP?

I have no idea.

I follow a lot of school board things, and have never heard of it.

But they were talking about "The Plunker Report" in relation to AAP and rezoning, as something that was a done deal.

Is it the Plucker report?

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BPLQKV69B096/$file/FCPS%20final%20report%2005.05.20.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they're really doing to do this, then they rip it all up. Change every boundary for every neighborhood and every school. Start completely over. Convert some of the ES to MS because the current MS's aren't large enough to accomodate 6-8.

They said they want a holistic review of every boundary. If this is the direction they're heading, it's not just going to be the Langley and West Springfield communities complaining once those draft maps come out in June.

This is what's been stated the "AI Tool", Frontline GIS, will do being used by Thru Consulting. They will use a clean slate, plug in "the data" they've collected and completely redraw everything. Some of the most recent minutes have identified "natural boarders" like the beltway, 66, 50. If all this ES to MS efforts are true, this will be plugged now vs later. It's been mentioned that many of the SB members don't have kids in school anymore so what do they have to lose? Thru Consulting is not local to DC which removes neighborhood bias as well. If they are going to anger and have to deal with a few subsets, why not Big Bang it all at once? If they are willing to risk not getting re-elected over pockets of change, why not rip it all up?

On the October 8 work session, this is exactly what Thru said they would do.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i04W3vvtV4w

The rezoning discussion starts at 2:47.

Thru discusses the software around 3:34.

There is discussion around 3:31 that part of the process will be marketing the change to parents by convincing them that school rankings by Niche and Great Schools are flawed and that the new 3 rated schools they are rezoned to are actually "equal or better" quality than the 8 or 10 school they purchased a home in.

4:01 they discuss that the Equity Officer will be involved in the process to guarantee compliance with One Fairfax

4:05 they state EVERY high school pyramid will be rezoned

4:17 discuses diversity in the advisory committee

4:19 discusses how the special interest groups were already involved with advising rezoning before the brac was formed

4:25 They discuss how the rezoning software can isolate addresses by demographic for the purpose of rezoning.

4:31 Reid states the software they are using can chart any program (AAP, demographics, etc) down to the individual household address.

4:32 Discusses that the school board already accepted "The Plunker Report" regarding AAP centers, and now they just need to work the recommendations into the rezoning process.

3:36 Dixon asks why did Reid not include any role for the Chief ACADEMIC Officer in the rezoning process, since this will greatly affect academics. Reid responds that the Chief Academic Officer will be brought in eventually, during the BRAC meetings.

If you care about the rezoning process, watch the October 8, 2024 planning meeting to get informed.

Thanks for the time stamps - very helpful!

What is the Plunker Report, and what did it recommend for AAP?

I have no idea.

I follow a lot of school board things, and have never heard of it.

But they were talking about "The Plunker Report" in relation to AAP and rezoning, as something that was a done deal.

Is it the Plucker report?

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BPLQKV69B096/$file/FCPS%20final%20report%2005.05.20.pdf

DP. I couldn't even bear to look at that report after seeing it was ALLLL about race and equity. For the love of god, would these people please just educate all kids regardless of their racial makeup??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they're really doing to do this, then they rip it all up. Change every boundary for every neighborhood and every school. Start completely over. Convert some of the ES to MS because the current MS's aren't large enough to accomodate 6-8.

They said they want a holistic review of every boundary. If this is the direction they're heading, it's not just going to be the Langley and West Springfield communities complaining once those draft maps come out in June.

This is what's been stated the "AI Tool", Frontline GIS, will do being used by Thru Consulting. They will use a clean slate, plug in "the data" they've collected and completely redraw everything. Some of the most recent minutes have identified "natural boarders" like the beltway, 66, 50. If all this ES to MS efforts are true, this will be plugged now vs later. It's been mentioned that many of the SB members don't have kids in school anymore so what do they have to lose? Thru Consulting is not local to DC which removes neighborhood bias as well. If they are going to anger and have to deal with a few subsets, why not Big Bang it all at once? If they are willing to risk not getting re-elected over pockets of change, why not rip it all up?

Wonder how much they paid for this? Bottom line: some minorities are underrepresented for various reasons. Mostly sodio-economic.

On the October 8 work session, this is exactly what Thru said they would do.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i04W3vvtV4w

The rezoning discussion starts at 2:47.

Thru discusses the software around 3:34.

There is discussion around 3:31 that part of the process will be marketing the change to parents by convincing them that school rankings by Niche and Great Schools are flawed and that the new 3 rated schools they are rezoned to are actually "equal or better" quality than the 8 or 10 school they purchased a home in.

4:01 they discuss that the Equity Officer will be involved in the process to guarantee compliance with One Fairfax

4:05 they state EVERY high school pyramid will be rezoned

4:17 discuses diversity in the advisory committee

4:19 discusses how the special interest groups were already involved with advising rezoning before the brac was formed

4:25 They discuss how the rezoning software can isolate addresses by demographic for the purpose of rezoning.

4:31 Reid states the software they are using can chart any program (AAP, demographics, etc) down to the individual household address.

4:32 Discusses that the school board already accepted "The Plunker Report" regarding AAP centers, and now they just need to work the recommendations into the rezoning process.

3:36 Dixon asks why did Reid not include any role for the Chief ACADEMIC Officer in the rezoning process, since this will greatly affect academics. Reid responds that the Chief Academic Officer will be brought in eventually, during the BRAC meetings.

If you care about the rezoning process, watch the October 8, 2024 planning meeting to get informed.

Thanks for the time stamps - very helpful!

What is the Plunker Report, and what did it recommend for AAP?

I have no idea.

I follow a lot of school board things, and have never heard of it.

But they were talking about "The Plunker Report" in relation to AAP and rezoning, as something that was a done deal.

Is it the Plucker report?

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BPLQKV69B096/$file/FCPS%20final%20report%2005.05.20.pdf

DP. I couldn't even bear to look at that report after seeing it was ALLLL about race and equity. For the love of god, would these people please just educate all kids regardless of their racial makeup??

[Anonymous]

What a piece of garbage, wow. I shouldn’t have read the recommendations (p. 42) before bed, because they got my blood pressure up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a piece of garbage, wow. I shouldn’t have read the recommendations (p. 42) before bed, because they got my blood pressure up.

So, i went to the recommendations. "Garbage" is putting it mildly. Gibberish. And, lots more training. Now, let's guess--which consultant will get the contract for all this training? How much time will be spent training the principal and teachers. Lots of recommendations for more "experts" in the school who work with teachers--not kids.

Here's one of my favorites

Improve educator knowledge and skills regarding advanced learning and advanced learners
(Recommendation 4). The review team recommends a rethinking of who receives such training and
how that training is administered, with a priority being professional development for central
administrators and principals. The next priority would be continuing and strengthening professional
development of AART staff given the importance of AARTs to the success of advanced academic
programs in each school. Finally, all classroom teachers in FCPS should have an understanding of the
needs of diverse, advanced learners, including comprehensive knowledge of the Young Scholars
program and how best to support participating students. Providing access, including provision of
substitute teachers, should be a priority given the high quality professional development
programming that has already been developed.

Wonder how much FCPS paid for this study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they're really doing to do this, then they rip it all up. Change every boundary for every neighborhood and every school. Start completely over. Convert some of the ES to MS because the current MS's aren't large enough to accomodate 6-8.

They said they want a holistic review of every boundary. If this is the direction they're heading, it's not just going to be the Langley and West Springfield communities complaining once those draft maps come out in June.

This is what's been stated the "AI Tool", Frontline GIS, will do being used by Thru Consulting. They will use a clean slate, plug in "the data" they've collected and completely redraw everything. Some of the most recent minutes have identified "natural boarders" like the beltway, 66, 50. If all this ES to MS efforts are true, this will be plugged now vs later. It's been mentioned that many of the SB members don't have kids in school anymore so what do they have to lose? Thru Consulting is not local to DC which removes neighborhood bias as well. If they are going to anger and have to deal with a few subsets, why not Big Bang it all at once? If they are willing to risk not getting re-elected over pockets of change, why not rip it all up?

On the October 8 work session, this is exactly what Thru said they would do.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i04W3vvtV4w

The rezoning discussion starts at 2:47.

Thru discusses the software around 3:34.

There is discussion around 3:31 that part of the process will be marketing the change to parents by convincing them that school rankings by Niche and Great Schools are flawed and that the new 3 rated schools they are rezoned to are actually "equal or better" quality than the 8 or 10 school they purchased a home in.

4:01 they discuss that the Equity Officer will be involved in the process to guarantee compliance with One Fairfax

4:05 they state EVERY high school pyramid will be rezoned

4:17 discuses diversity in the advisory committee

4:19 discusses how the special interest groups were already involved with advising rezoning before the brac was formed

4:25 They discuss how the rezoning software can isolate addresses by demographic for the purpose of rezoning.

4:31 Reid states the software they are using can chart any program (AAP, demographics, etc) down to the individual household address.

4:32 Discusses that the school board already accepted "The Plunker Report" regarding AAP centers, and now they just need to work the recommendations into the rezoning process.

3:36 Dixon asks why did Reid not include any role for the Chief ACADEMIC Officer in the rezoning process, since this will greatly affect academics. Reid responds that the Chief Academic Officer will be brought in eventually, during the BRAC meetings.

If you care about the rezoning process, watch the October 8, 2024 planning meeting to get informed.

Thanks for the time stamps - very helpful!

What is the Plunker Report, and what did it recommend for AAP?

I have no idea.

I follow a lot of school board things, and have never heard of it.

But they were talking about "The Plunker Report" in relation to AAP and rezoning, as something that was a done deal.

Is it the Plucker report?

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BPLQKV69B096/$file/FCPS%20final%20report%2005.05.20.pdf

Ah!

That must be it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a piece of garbage, wow. I shouldn’t have read the recommendations (p. 42) before bed, because they got my blood pressure up.

So, i went to the recommendations. "Garbage" is putting it mildly. Gibberish. And, lots more training. Now, let's guess--which consultant will get the contract for all this training? How much time will be spent training the principal and teachers. Lots of recommendations for more "experts" in the school who work with teachers--not kids.

Here's one of my favorites

Improve educator knowledge and skills regarding advanced learning and advanced learners
(Recommendation 4). The review team recommends a rethinking of who receives such training and
how that training is administered, with a priority being professional development for central
administrators and principals. The next priority would be continuing and strengthening professional
development of AART staff given the importance of AARTs to the success of advanced academic
programs in each school. Finally, all classroom teachers in FCPS should have an understanding of the
needs of diverse, advanced learners, including comprehensive knowledge of the Young Scholars
program and how best to support participating students. Providing access, including provision of
substitute teachers, should be a priority given the high quality professional development
programming that has already been developed.

Wonder how much FCPS paid for this study.

"Examination of the initial universal screening cutoff score. The current cut scores for NNAT or CogAT are extremely high – only the top ~2% of students in the country would be expected to be further considered for identification and placement in Level IV Centers, even fewer from traditionally underrepresented groups. If the referral pathway was restricted, the universal screening cut scores could be lowered without overburdening the Central Selection Committee process. Furthermore, if local (i.e., building-level) norms were used to make placements, the cut scores would (and should) vary considerably among building. "

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a piece of garbage, wow. I shouldn’t have read the recommendations (p. 42) before bed, because they got my blood pressure up.

So, i went to the recommendations. "Garbage" is putting it mildly. Gibberish. And, lots more training. Now, let's guess--which consultant will get the contract for all this training? How much time will be spent training the principal and teachers. Lots of recommendations for more "experts" in the school who work with teachers--not kids.

Here's one of my favorites

Improve educator knowledge and skills regarding advanced learning and advanced learners
(Recommendation 4). The review team recommends a rethinking of who receives such training and
how that training is administered, with a priority being professional development for central
administrators and principals. The next priority would be continuing and strengthening professional
development of AART staff given the importance of AARTs to the success of advanced academic
programs in each school. Finally, all classroom teachers in FCPS should have an understanding of the
needs of diverse, advanced learners, including comprehensive knowledge of the Young Scholars
program and how best to support participating students. Providing access, including provision of
substitute teachers, should be a priority given the high quality professional development
programming that has already been developed.

Wonder how much FCPS paid for this study.

"Examination of the initial universal screening cutoff score. The current cut scores for NNAT or CogAT are extremely high – only the top ~2% of students in the country would be expected to be further considered for identification and placement in Level IV Centers, even fewer from traditionally underrepresented groups. If the referral pathway was restricted, the universal screening cut scores could be lowered without overburdening the Central Selection Committee process. Furthermore, if local (i.e., building-level) norms were used to make placements, the cut scores would (and should) vary considerably among building. "

How is it equal or fair to have "considerable" cut off thresholds for access to AAP based on equity goals, while actively trying to cut off access to the AAP program for specific demographics?

The school board and Reid are actively trying to discriminate against certain demographics during the rezoning process to create unequal access to the gifted program in the name of equity??

[Anonymous]

Principals place students into LLIV classrooms, a necessity to ensure reasonably balanced class sizes, and yet you think a straightforward recommendation that they should have training regarding advanced learners is "Gibberish"? Okaaaayyy.....

My concern in reading this would instead be why aren't principals and AARTs already receiving such training? Would seem long overdue for their roles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a piece of garbage, wow. I shouldn’t have read the recommendations (p. 42) before bed, because they got my blood pressure up.

So, i went to the recommendations. "Garbage" is putting it mildly. Gibberish. And, lots more training. Now, let's guess--which consultant will get the contract for all this training? How much time will be spent training the principal and teachers. Lots of recommendations for more "experts" in the school who work with teachers--not kids.

Here's one of my favorites

Improve educator knowledge and skills regarding advanced learning and advanced learners
(Recommendation 4). The review team recommends a rethinking of who receives such training and
how that training is administered, with a priority being professional development for central
administrators and principals. The next priority would be continuing and strengthening professional
development of AART staff given the importance of AARTs to the success of advanced academic
programs in each school. Finally, all classroom teachers in FCPS should have an understanding of the
needs of diverse, advanced learners, including comprehensive knowledge of the Young Scholars
program and how best to support participating students. Providing access, including provision of
substitute teachers, should be a priority given the high quality professional development
programming that has already been developed.

Wonder how much FCPS paid for this study.

"Examination of the initial universal screening cutoff score. The current cut scores for NNAT or CogAT are extremely high – only the top ~2% of students in the country would be expected to be further considered for identification and placement in Level IV Centers, even fewer from traditionally underrepresented groups. If the referral pathway was restricted, the universal screening cut scores could be lowered without overburdening the Central Selection Committee process. Furthermore, if local (i.e., building-level) norms were used to make placements, the cut scores would (and should) vary considerably among building. "

How is it equal or fair to have "considerable" cut off thresholds for access to AAP based on equity goals, while actively trying to cut off access to the AAP program for specific demographics?

The school board and Reid are actively trying to discriminate against certain demographics during the rezoning process to create unequal access to the gifted program in the name of equity??

My understanding is the point of AAP is basically for a differentiated learning environment when a student's needs orpotential can't adequately be met in a GenEd classroom. Given that the overall level and pace of learning in GenEd classrooms can vary substantially by school site, it would seem obvious that the thresholds for differentiated learning in an AAP classroom should likewise vary substantially by school site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a piece of garbage, wow. I shouldn’t have read the recommendations (p. 42) before bed, because they got my blood pressure up.

So, i went to the recommendations. "Garbage" is putting it mildly. Gibberish. And, lots more training. Now, let's guess--which consultant will get the contract for all this training? How much time will be spent training the principal and teachers. Lots of recommendations for more "experts" in the school who work with teachers--not kids.

Here's one of my favorites

Improve educator knowledge and skills regarding advanced learning and advanced learners
(Recommendation 4). The review team recommends a rethinking of who receives such training and
how that training is administered, with a priority being professional development for central
administrators and principals. The next priority would be continuing and strengthening professional
development of AART staff given the importance of AARTs to the success of advanced academic
programs in each school. Finally, all classroom teachers in FCPS should have an understanding of the
needs of diverse, advanced learners, including comprehensive knowledge of the Young Scholars
program and how best to support participating students. Providing access, including provision of
substitute teachers, should be a priority given the high quality professional development
programming that has already been developed.

Wonder how much FCPS paid for this study.

"Examination of the initial universal screening cutoff score. The current cut scores for NNAT or CogAT are extremely high – only the top ~2% of students in the country would be expected to be further considered for identification and placement in Level IV Centers, even fewer from traditionally underrepresented groups. If the referral pathway was restricted, the universal screening cut scores could be lowered without overburdening the Central Selection Committee process. Furthermore, if local (i.e., building-level) norms were used to make placements, the cut scores would (and should) vary considerably among building. "

How is it equal or fair to have "considerable" cut off thresholds for access to AAP based on equity goals, while actively trying to cut off access to the AAP program for specific demographics?

The school board and Reid are actively trying to discriminate against certain demographics during the rezoning process to create unequal access to the gifted program in the name of equity??

No. That reads that they have to lower the cut score to allow enough kids into local AAP to make a decent class size. Which is exactly why they need to keep the centers. Many of us have been saying that the cohorts in local level IV are not strong enough academically for this exact reason. Our center also requires all AAP teachers to be certified to teach gifted children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a piece of garbage, wow. I shouldn’t have read the recommendations (p. 42) before bed, because they got my blood pressure up.

So, i went to the recommendations. "Garbage" is putting it mildly. Gibberish. And, lots more training. Now, let's guess--which consultant will get the contract for all this training? How much time will be spent training the principal and teachers. Lots of recommendations for more "experts" in the school who work with teachers--not kids.

Here's one of my favorites

Improve educator knowledge and skills regarding advanced learning and advanced learners
(Recommendation 4). The review team recommends a rethinking of who receives such training and
how that training is administered, with a priority being professional development for central
administrators and principals. The next priority would be continuing and strengthening professional
development of AART staff given the importance of AARTs to the success of advanced academic
programs in each school. Finally, all classroom teachers in FCPS should have an understanding of the
needs of diverse, advanced learners, including comprehensive knowledge of the Young Scholars
program and how best to support participating students. Providing access, including provision of
substitute teachers, should be a priority given the high quality professional development
programming that has already been developed.

Wonder how much FCPS paid for this study.

"Examination of the initial universal screening cutoff score. The current cut scores for NNAT or CogAT are extremely high – only the top ~2% of students in the country would be expected to be further considered for identification and placement in Level IV Centers, even fewer from traditionally underrepresented groups. If the referral pathway was restricted, the universal screening cut scores could be lowered without overburdening the Central Selection Committee process. Furthermore, if local (i.e., building-level) norms were used to make placements, the cut scores would (and should) vary considerably among building. "

How is it equal or fair to have "considerable" cut off thresholds for access to AAP based on equity goals, while actively trying to cut off access to the AAP program for specific demographics?

The school board and Reid are actively trying to discriminate against certain demographics during the rezoning process to create unequal access to the gifted program in the name of equity??

No. That reads that they have to lower the cut score to allow enough kids into local AAP to make a decent class size. Which is exactly why they need to keep the centers. Many of us have been saying that the cohorts in local level IV are not strong enough academically for this exact reason. Our center also requires all AAP teachers to be certified to teach gifted children.

AAP is NOT Gifted. And, this "study" proves it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a piece of garbage, wow. I shouldn’t have read the recommendations (p. 42) before bed, because they got my blood pressure up.

So, i went to the recommendations. "Garbage" is putting it mildly. Gibberish. And, lots more training. Now, let's guess--which consultant will get the contract for all this training? How much time will be spent training the principal and teachers. Lots of recommendations for more "experts" in the school who work with teachers--not kids.

Here's one of my favorites

Improve educator knowledge and skills regarding advanced learning and advanced learners
(Recommendation 4). The review team recommends a rethinking of who receives such training and
how that training is administered, with a priority being professional development for central
administrators and principals. The next priority would be continuing and strengthening professional
development of AART staff given the importance of AARTs to the success of advanced academic
programs in each school. Finally, all classroom teachers in FCPS should have an understanding of the
needs of diverse, advanced learners, including comprehensive knowledge of the Young Scholars
program and how best to support participating students. Providing access, including provision of
substitute teachers, should be a priority given the high quality professional development
programming that has already been developed.

Wonder how much FCPS paid for this study.

"Examination of the initial universal screening cutoff score. The current cut scores for NNAT or CogAT are extremely high – only the top ~2% of students in the country would be expected to be further considered for identification and placement in Level IV Centers, even fewer from traditionally underrepresented groups. If the referral pathway was restricted, the universal screening cut scores could be lowered without overburdening the Central Selection Committee process. Furthermore, if local (i.e., building-level) norms were used to make placements, the cut scores would (and should) vary considerably among building. "

How is it equal or fair to have "considerable" cut off thresholds for access to AAP based on equity goals, while actively trying to cut off access to the AAP program for specific demographics?

The school board and Reid are actively trying to discriminate against certain demographics during the rezoning process to create unequal access to the gifted program in the name of equity??

My understanding is the point of AAP is basically for a differentiated learning environment when a student's needs orpotential can't adequately be met in a GenEd classroom. Given that the overall level and pace of learning in GenEd classrooms can vary substantially by school site, it would seem obvious that the thresholds for differentiated learning in an AAP classroom should likewise vary substantially by school site.

Students in general education receive the same curriculum across the county regardless of the class has a cohort of students in the 98th/99th percentile that didn’t qualify for in pool cut off at their schools. The school doesn’t have to provide a differentiated learning environment or curriculum. This is 💯 not equitable with students having scores 10-20 points lower on cogat/NNAT qualifying at lower schools. These kids all get sent to the same AAP center schools. So you have kids at some schools that have to have 138 cogat scores and kids with 120 cogat scores at the centers and then leave the highly gifted kids at base schools with 98th/99th percentile IQs to be with a similar cohort of highly gifted kids who don’t qualify for the program?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a piece of garbage, wow. I shouldn’t have read the recommendations (p. 42) before bed, because they got my blood pressure up.

So, i went to the recommendations. "Garbage" is putting it mildly. Gibberish. And, lots more training. Now, let's guess--which consultant will get the contract for all this training? How much time will be spent training the principal and teachers. Lots of recommendations for more "experts" in the school who work with teachers--not kids.

Here's one of my favorites

Improve educator knowledge and skills regarding advanced learning and advanced learners
(Recommendation 4). The review team recommends a rethinking of who receives such training and
how that training is administered, with a priority being professional development for central
administrators and principals. The next priority would be continuing and strengthening professional
development of AART staff given the importance of AARTs to the success of advanced academic
programs in each school. Finally, all classroom teachers in FCPS should have an understanding of the
needs of diverse, advanced learners, including comprehensive knowledge of the Young Scholars
program and how best to support participating students. Providing access, including provision of
substitute teachers, should be a priority given the high quality professional development
programming that has already been developed.

Wonder how much FCPS paid for this study.

"Examination of the initial universal screening cutoff score. The current cut scores for NNAT or CogAT are extremely high – only the top ~2% of students in the country would be expected to be further considered for identification and placement in Level IV Centers, even fewer from traditionally underrepresented groups. If the referral pathway was restricted, the universal screening cut scores could be lowered without overburdening the Central Selection Committee process. Furthermore, if local (i.e., building-level) norms were used to make placements, the cut scores would (and should) vary considerably among building. "

How is it equal or fair to have "considerable" cut off thresholds for access to AAP based on equity goals, while actively trying to cut off access to the AAP program for specific demographics?

The school board and Reid are actively trying to discriminate against certain demographics during the rezoning process to create unequal access to the gifted program in the name of equity??

My understanding is the point of AAP is basically for a differentiated learning environment when a student's needs orpotential can't adequately be met in a GenEd classroom. Given that the overall level and pace of learning in GenEd classrooms can vary substantially by school site, it would seem obvious that the thresholds for differentiated learning in an AAP classroom should likewise vary substantially by school site.

Students in general education receive the same curriculum across the county regardless of the class has a cohort of students in the 98th/99th percentile that didn’t qualify for in pool cut off at their schools. The school doesn’t have to provide a differentiated learning environment or curriculum. This is 💯 not equitable with students having scores 10-20 points lower on cogat/NNAT qualifying at lower schools. These kids all get sent to the same AAP center schools. So you have kids at some schools that have to have 138 cogat scores and kids with 120 cogat scores at the centers and then leave the highly gifted kids at base schools with 98th/99th percentile IQs to be with a similar cohort of highly gifted kids who don’t qualify for the program?

I seriously doubt that there are Centers with kids from Title 1 schools and kids from UMC schools. The schools with score cut offs in the 140s are not in the same are as the few schools with cut offs in the high 120s. And parents from any where in the County can refer their kid. The 130 kids at the schools with higher cut offs have parents who know that and refer. Many are admitted to AAP.