Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For clarification the cutoff is the lower of a building norm or the national norm. I believe the national norm is 132. No school will have a higher cutoff than the national norm, but some schools may be lower.

Not sure why 137 poster didn't get an email, but it's making me hope that maybe not all the emails were sent out or some schools are doing a different way or are behind.

Cite?

Not PP, but this is where people (including myself until I read the Brabrand Briefing) were getting that from, the 12/3/2020 SB meeting where the motion was passed to do this:

I move that in School Year 2020-21, for schools with an AAP Local Level IV or AAP Level IV Center, the pool of second grade students to be screened for AAP Level IV services will be identified by piloting the use local building norms, while ensuring that any student who meets the national norm is also identified for screening. In schools that do not yet have a Level IV program, national norms will continue to be used to identify students for eligibility screening.

Motion by Stella Pekarsky - Vice Chair, second by Laura Jane H Cohen.
Final Resolution: Motion Carries
Yes: Megan McLaughlin, Ricardy J Anderson - Chair, Melanie K Meren, Rachna S Heizer, Elaine V Tholen, Tamara D Kaufax, Karen Corbett Sanders, Karen A Keys-Gamarra, Stella Pekarsky - Vice Chair, Abrar Omeish, Laura Jane H Cohen, Karl V Frisch

http://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=BVJEC639BBEC

Brabrand doesn't reference national norms any more in the briefing or anywhere else.

This is definitely the process used for the 2020-21 school year but sounds as though it was changed for 2021-22. I no longer see any reference to the use of national norms.

FWIW, it pays to pay attention to the school board meetings and to Board Docs. You learn stuff that way that your school doesn't mention (because they don't think they need to or because most parents don't care or whatever).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For clarification the cutoff is the lower of a building norm or the national norm. I believe the national norm is 132. No school will have a higher cutoff than the national norm, but some schools may be lower.

Not sure why 137 poster didn't get an email, but it's making me hope that maybe not all the emails were sent out or some schools are doing a different way or are behind.

Cite?

Not PP, but this is where people (including myself until I read the Brabrand Briefing) were getting that from, the 12/3/2020 SB meeting where the motion was passed to do this:

I move that in School Year 2020-21, for schools with an AAP Local Level IV or AAP Level IV Center, the pool of second grade students to be screened for AAP Level IV services will be identified by piloting the use local building norms, while ensuring that any student who meets the national norm is also identified for screening. In schools that do not yet have a Level IV program, national norms will continue to be used to identify students for eligibility screening.

Motion by Stella Pekarsky - Vice Chair, second by Laura Jane H Cohen.
Final Resolution: Motion Carries
Yes: Megan McLaughlin, Ricardy J Anderson - Chair, Melanie K Meren, Rachna S Heizer, Elaine V Tholen, Tamara D Kaufax, Karen Corbett Sanders, Karen A Keys-Gamarra, Stella Pekarsky - Vice Chair, Abrar Omeish, Laura Jane H Cohen, Karl V Frisch

http://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=BVJEC639BBEC

Brabrand doesn't reference national norms any more in the briefing or anywhere else.

More on local building norms was at the 10/27/2020 work session for the curious. Note they did not make all the changes they said they would make in this slideshow:

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BUSHU84A24DC/$file/AAP%20Staff%20Response_102720.pdf

Note that while the motion failed on 10/27, it later passed in I think December of 2020. I don't think there was ever a vote to move from piloting to using permanently, but it happened per the Brabrand Briefing.

Anonymous wrote:For clarification the cutoff is the lower of a building norm or the national norm. I believe the national norm is 132. No school will have a higher cutoff than the national norm, but some schools may be lower.

Not sure why 137 poster didn't get an email, but it's making me hope that maybe not all the emails were sent out or some schools are doing a different way or are behind.

Cite?

Anonymous wrote:For clarification the cutoff is the lower of a building norm or the national norm. I believe the national norm is 132. No school will have a higher cutoff than the national norm, but some schools may be lower.

Not sure why 137 poster didn't get an email, but it's making me hope that maybe not all the emails were sent out or some schools are doing a different way or are behind.

Bolded: I'm not sure that's what it is any more. Read about it yourself in the 10/18/2021 Brabrand Briefing to the SB: https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/C7WNMJ5CD260/$file/Brabrand%20Briefing%20-%20October%2018%2C%202021.pdf.

Italicized: It's the AAP Office notifying parents per Notice 2401, but maybe they are going pyramid by pyramid?

For clarification the cutoff is the lower of a building norm or the national norm. I believe the national norm is 132. No school will have a higher cutoff than the national norm, but some schools may be lower.

Not sure why 137 poster didn't get an email, but it's making me hope that maybe not all the emails were sent out or some schools are doing a different way or are behind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids are at one of the "higher performing elementary schools" and the Assistant Principal told us it would be 132 for "in pool."

Our AART said she literally had no idea what the pool would be and acted as though she’d never heard of the 132 point cut-off.

Our AART said our school was "usually" 132. Not sure why she was so confident on that, maybe FCPS ran a historical analysis of what building norms would normally be?

I would guess that many schools have 5% of the kids scoring 132 or higher on the CogAT and so AARTs would have good reason to expect that their schools in-pool score would stay in that range.

Anonymous wrote:Kids who are in-pool stand a better chance of being accepted. The last report on the matter said that 2/3 of in-pool kids were accepted and 1/2 of the parent referred kids were accepted. There are more kids who are parent referred then in-pool kids that are reviewed.

Yes, but it's not directly due to the in-pool status. It's just that kids with higher test scores have a somewhat better chance of being accepted than kids with lower test scores. The selection panel is not going to view a parent referral 131 as being significantly different than an in-pool 132.

The main point about pool status is that it's the cut line where even if the parents are completely disengaged, confused about the process, don't speak English, or for whatever other reason don't submit a referral, the kid will still be considered for AAP. It doesn't matter that much in the higher income schools, because everyone is referring their kids with 120+ test scores. It matters much more in lower income schools, where parents are much less likely to refer their kids for AAP.

The equity report showed that NNAT carries little to no weight, and GBRS is 4 times more important than CogAT scores in deciding whether a kid gets in. The scores, and by extension, pool status are somewhat important, but they won't make or break you the way the GBRS will.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if schools with own special norms under new process are the ones who got notified tonight?

Any perennial top performing schools send letters tonight? I'm thinking Franklin Sherman, Great Falls ES, Haycock, Canterbury Woods, Waynewood, Mantua, Churchill Road?

Please explain the special norms. I am in one of those schools and have not heard about this yet.

I haven't heard from CWES, but my kid would not be in pool on NNAT there and I'm not sure how they did on the CoGAT (my parental instincts are mixed). My kid may just not be in pool.

Has anyone asked their AART about the pool emails?? Like if they were doing for some schools and not others based on the different pool cutoffs?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids are at one of the "higher performing elementary schools" and the Assistant Principal told us it would be 132 for "in pool."

Our AART said she literally had no idea what the pool would be and acted as though she’d never heard of the 132 point cut-off.

Our AART said our school was "usually" 132. Not sure why she was so confident on that, maybe FCPS ran a historical analysis of what building norms would normally be?

I have been following this for a few years with older kids and it has almost always been 132.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids are at one of the "higher performing elementary schools" and the Assistant Principal told us it would be 132 for "in pool."

Our AART said she literally had no idea what the pool would be and acted as though she’d never heard of the 132 point cut-off.

Our AART said our school was "usually" 132. Not sure why she was so confident on that, maybe FCPS ran a historical analysis of what building norms would normally be?

Anonymous wrote:My kids are at one of the "higher performing elementary schools" and the Assistant Principal told us it would be 132 for "in pool."

Our AART said she literally had no idea what the pool would be and acted as though she’d never heard of the 132 point cut-off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what’s the local norm they are using? Top 10%? Top 15%? Is it that any one score within the target range qualifies or do all scores have to be in range? Do all schools now have local norms or only Title I? Has anyone seen this information in board docs?

95th percentile or above for the building per what Brabrand said in October.

Do you have a link to this? I can’t seem to find it.

That's because it was weirdly never publicized. One SB member included it in an update email, but that's it.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/C7TSU8744C3E/$file/2021%20Oct%20-%20local%20norm%20expansion%20briefing.pdf

That has to have been purposeful.