Reply to Cogat and NNAt 2021 Scores Sharing thread

Forum Index » Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)

Reply to "Cogat and NNAt 2021 Scores Sharing thread"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]They are limiting the pool to make it easier for committee to review thousands of files. Many kids in high SES schools have been scored by above 132 and hence it’s a good idea to limit the pool to top 5 to 10%. 
Anyone who feels their child needs AAP can refer. Why bother about the pool? [/quote]

Because then all they're doing is excluding kids who scored 132+ with no test prep and uninvolved or uninformed parents. [/quote]

But they’re capturing more kids with uninformed parents at lower SES schools (where the uninformed parents are statistically more likely to be).  So the net result is more smart kids identified.[/quote]

No one has an evidence they actually included kids lower than 132 even at the low SES schools. At even middle level SES schools, they raised the pool to above 132. However even the high SES schools have some portion of FARMs and ELL (great falls even has 3% FARM). At those schools last year a talented kid who was FARM, ELL, or URM that scored greater than 132 would be in pool and automatically considered, even if their parents are uninvolved or uninformed about AAP. This year that same kid isn't in pool and doesn't get parent referred, so they don't get considered. Meanwhile their peers with parents who have been prepping and otherwise pushing the kid to make AAP will parent refer and be considered. Great job achieving equity! Now maybe you believe like some on the other thread that those kids are unicorns (which is a gross statement) or that they'll still have a high peer group at a high SES school. It doesn't negate the fact the new system punishes kids who have uninformed or uninvolved parents. This is also an issue at average SES schools where people have reported also having previously in pool scores no longer being in pool.

If they're missing some of those kids at some schools and considering more kids at some schools, is the system actually more helpful to those kids?

None of this negates that the changes approved last year specifically included a safety net to ensure no child was harmed by the changes. This year the safety net has been removed with no acknowledgement or vote by the board. They have data from past years, they could have run an analysis to determine the net effects at each school and the board should have to be made aware of that and approve the change knowing they're picking some kids over others. [/quote]

You assume that huge numbers of families in non-Title I schools will not parent refer at scores between 132 and 140 and therefore fall through the cracks. You also assume that this number will be so large as to offset the increase in referrals at Title I schools (as demonstrated in the pilot) due to lower in-pool cut-offs. I dispute those assumptions. Only time will tell who is correct.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics